Talk:Ambassador Bridge

message: I removed these vitriolic sections as they do nothing to further the article.
"Charles Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists, own Koch Carbon which purchases the black "high-sulfur, high-carbon waste" petroleum coke stored by Detroit Bulk Storage owned by Noel Frye and John Fry,
which uses an open storage method, creating an unsightly three-story high stockpile of their product covering an entire city block beside the Detroit River near the Ambassador Bridge"
"The Koch brothers, who challenge the science behind human activity causing climate change, sell petcoke overseas as fuel."
The second section is irrelevant to the Ambassador Bridge and should be put in a separate article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.35.25 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if there's any impact of this to the area, it should be added to the article for that part of Detroit, not the bridge article itself. I.e. move the content after cleaning out the POV. AadaamS (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the whole section as it's entirely irrelevant. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove section (again?): this is a Wikipedia:Coatrack section.  I'm with 97.85.35.7 and Floydian on this: The petcoke thing has no apparent relationship to the bridge.  In the section, there is the vague nominal claim that some park used to have an "unobstructed" view of the bridge before the petcoke was there, but that's a pretty thin connection: It looks like this petcoke subject is simply someone's controversy in search of a Wikipedia article, and this article ended up "blessed" with it; this is classic Wikipedia:Coatrack behavior, and should be removed unless someone demonstrates a closer connection soon. --Closeapple (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notwillywanka, you have re-added that section when the consensus by editors on this talk page is that it does not belong in this article. Following this consensus, I am removing that section again. Do not re-add without discussing it here first please. Further, the statement about the view of the bridge from Assumption Park in Ontario is not supported by the cited source. AadaamS (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute & Removed Vitriolic Section

message: What is the bridge's width? Funnyhat 03:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four lanes. Two in each direction. Flibirigit 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean, how wide is it in feet/meters? Funnyhat 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: This article is still pretty short, and doesn't cover much about the history or operations of the bridge. -- Beland 01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I managed to archive a copy of the Ambassador Bridge's website before they took down all their data due to security reasons. Should i post the information here? I have the dimensions and so on. Apparently, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel told The Windsor Star that they would remove their information with the Ambassador Bridge, but they didn't.  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions, stats, etc... 

message: User F203 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest beefing up the history of the bridge part of the article 

message: So how did the bridge come to be privately owned?  The article does not say.  One could infer a number of circumstances, but it is unlikely that the transaction that took it from public ownership to private ownership, some three decades or so, was an involuntary transaction.  In other words, I would think we might infer that the public agency(ies) must have consented to sell the bridge since, it would appear, that the bridge was originally a public thoroughfare.
At any rate, I think the Wikipedia article would be greatly improved to have a WP:NPOV historical treatment of that chapter of the bridge's history.  (and is sorely lacking without it).  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The bridge was always privately owned. It was financed by a group of investors who formed the two holding companies on either side of the river. I agree that the article needs a history section though. I have two books requested through the Michigan eLibrary system to add such a section. They should be here within a week or so. Imzadi 1979 →  21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a bit more detail. Funny to see Forbes arguing for socialism http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/01/12/why-one-rich-man-shouldnt-own-an-international-bridge/?partner=yahootix  Greglocock (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did the bridge come to be privately owned?   

message: It would be perhaps trivial, but useful, to indicate the arrangement of toll gates.  Current Google Earth photography seems to suggest that there is no automobile toll gate on the Canadian end of the bridge, which suggests to me that tolls are paid on the US side for both directions of traffic.  Can someone confirm this, and if this is the case, mention it in the article? GBC (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that yes you pay the toll on the US side going either way. This happened after 9/11 when many people were refused entry into the US, had already paid the toll on entering from the Canadian side and felt they should not have to pay to use the bridge if the end result was not entering the US. It also helps the owner keep all funds on the US Side, not having to declare any revenues through the CTC and pay Canadian taxes. I do not have outside sources, just my own personal experience crossing the bridge, and conversations with employees.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toll gate 

message: *  Why One Rich Man Shouldn't Own An International Bridge 1/12/2012 @ 5:55PM by Joann Muller, Forbes staff writer; excerpt ... 
**Billionaire Bridge Owner's Greed Lands Him In Jail 1/12/2012
** http://www.forbes.com/profile/manuel-moroun/
** The Troll Under The Bridge  by Stephane Fitch and Joann Muller, 11.15.04 
** No joy in seeing Moroun jailed -- but valuable lessons on greed in Freep.com 11:21 AM, Jan. 12, 2012 by Stephen Henderson (editor)
99.181.131.215 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like his money has paid him freedom (my opinion, not encyclopedic in value): Fox @ Detroit]--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forbes.com]] resource, with article's internal links included 

message: I added actual stats as publicly provided.  I added up to date tolls.  I don't see why these edits were undone.  Everything I added had citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCola (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly / Tolls 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ambassador Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101216064434/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/windsor/story/2010/03/25/windsor-ambassador-bridge-owner-sues.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2010/03/25/windsor-ambassador-bridge-owner-sues.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ambassador Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321130504/http://www.detroitchamber.com/detroiter/articles.asp?cid=7&detcid=531 to http://www.detroitchamber.com/detroiter/articles.asp?cid=7&detcid=531
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041016080156/http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=13&category=business to http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=13&category=business
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Updated developments on the fate of the bridge and its proposed twin span/replacement span. Article should be updated to make note of this http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2017/09/ambassador_bridge_to_be_demoli.html  http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/moroun-scores-long-awaited-canadian-approval-to-build-twin-span  https://detroit.curbed.com/2017/9/6/16263618/ambassador-bridge-span-moroun SecretName101 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  update 

message: Yes I get it the bridge is owned by an American company, but the bridge crosses Canada and therefore it is preferred that the units be primarily metric so Canadians can be more benefited. Yes I also get it, old Canadians still use Canadian customary units (imperial system) but again today’s Canadians prefer metric as primary units on these articles, such as this one (Ambassador Bridge). MetricSupporter89 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article info box sections that involve units 

message: This is an international article so it needs metric first.  MetricSupporter89 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you blanked my message on your talkpage, I'll repeat myself here: "You need to open a discussion at Talk:Ambassador Bridge to obtain consensus, not just claim that one exists despite your edits being questioned by other editors. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy, and that you are not entitled to edit-war to promote the views expressed on your userpage." There are two parts - opening a discussion, which you've done twice now, and obtaining a consensus, which you have not. Please resist the urge to use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put metric first 

message: Given the image use policy, what specific purpose is served by the image gallery? Someone has put it back twice now, claiming that it "does add to the article", but without indicating how they think it does that. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As a compromise, I've moved two of the images from the gallery into the body of the article. That said, the article is under-illustrated now, so the photos in the gallery rectified that issue. That's the value that the gallery added to the article. Imzadi 1979 →  20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article needs more images, add more images. You haven't explained why you wanted them in a gallery section. Nor have you explained why you deleted the content I added. I am reporting you now for breaking the three revert rule. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A gallery is not encouraged nor discouraged under our guidelines. Sometimes it's best to keep images in a gallery because to move all of them into the text would crowd out the prose at its current length. Imzadi 1979 →  20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.. Three revert rule violation now reported  46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've already reached a compromise on the images, have we not? Two have been moved up, and gallery containing the rest is gone? Any of the rest could still be moved up, could they not? Since your issue with the gallery, and not the specific images, that concern is satisfied, right?Regarding the stub articles on the two holding companies, as another editor and I have noted, they are not independently notable separate from the bridge, so we don't need articles on them to say what this bridge article already says. Imzadi 1979 →  21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image gallery 

message: It looks like:
* in 2008, there 1482 thousand Incoming Full and Empty Container Crossings via truck via Detroit, Michigan
* in 2007, 1 414 700 trucks were transported in Eurotunnel trains (source: Insee Nord-Pas-de-Calais - Bilan socio-économique 2007)
This makes Ambassador Bridge comparable to Eurotunnel?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.75 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Container Crossings Ambassador Bridge than trucks in Eurotunnel trains? 

message: The article states that tax free fuel is sold by the owners of the bridge, but it should also mention where this exactly takes place, i.e. is there a gas station located in no mans land or why it is otherwise tax free. --217.149.172.70 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the website, it appears that fuel is sold at the duty frees on both sides of the bridge: in Detroit and in Windsor. While diesel is available on both sides of the Detroit River, it seems regular and premium are only available on the American side. Paris1127 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax free fuel