Talk:Williamsburg Bridge

message: Gallery and info box column on right are overlapping. Could someone who knows how please fix this? 65.96.180.86 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I inserted a div tag with a style="clear:right" just before the gallery tag. Overlap should be gone now. --Dschwen 07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meanwhile (or before) I added template invocation  added to try to fix it. There may be a better way but that was a fast fix. That often works as a fast fix, but it sometimes leaves icky gaps in the article on the page. Hope that helps ++Lar: t/c 07:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (clear does just about the same thing... probably don't need both, someone smarter than me should decide which to keep) ++Lar: t/c 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed my div, kept your . It is more wiki-style (thanks by the way, I didn't know it) and the position was better (gap before the heading not after). --Dschwen 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article says the Long Island Railroad used the bridge.  However, the Williamsburgh Branch was truncated in 1876 at Bushwick, and only runs from there to Fresh Pond where it joins the Montauk Branch.  So, how did LIRR trains run on a bridge that opened in 1902?  Jim.henderson 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These were actually Brooklyn Rapid Transit trains that used the BMT Jamaica Line to the Chestnut Street Incline and then the LIRR Atlantic Branch to Jamaica or the Rockaway Beach Branch to the Rockaways. --NE2 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LIRR

message: The article intro says that the bridge "once carried ... Interstate 78", but also says "had the Lower Manhattan Expressway been built, the Williamsburg Bridge would have obtained the Interstate 78 designation" (my emphasis). Did the bridge ever use this designation or not? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 78 

message: I'm afraid that User:Beyond My Ken has dragged his dispute with me here, but I replaced the image of rail tracks (that had too much clutter in the photograph, and poorer use of leading lines aesthetically) with a night photograph of the J train actually moving (with motion blur at the front of the train, but everything else in focus, to suggest motion, as per the techniques of photography. Beyond My Ken reverted me, and I'm asking for consensus on this issue. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you are incorrect.  Williamsburg Bridge is on my watchlist, and if you look at the article's history you'll note that I have 49 edits to it, more than any other single editor.I removed your image because we do not judge the encyclopedic quality of images by how "artistic" they are, but by how well they illustrate the article or provide additional information to the reader.  I do not disagree that your picture is more artistic, it simply does not do what the picture in that place in the article is intended to do, which is to show the track configuration.  However, I can see leaving it in the article if we swap the order and put it under the more straight-forward one. BMK (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed this picture on the J/Z (New York City Subway service) article, too. In both places, it just does not seem that the image does not add much to the article, since each article has several images already. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (I think you have too many negatives in that first phrase of the second sentence.) That's because the image was not intended to be illustrative, informative, or presentational, the things we generally ask from our article images, it was clearly designed to be artistic.  This is not to say that an artistic image cannot be illustrative etc, or that informative etc. images can't also be artistically satisfying, but in this case the intent was obviously simply to be an interesting picture of a speeding train.  It might be useful for other things, but as a useful image in an encyclopedia article, it's not of much value. BMK (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (I just noticed that I had a double negative, thanks. I meant a single negative.) I think the black-and-white image can be moved to a less conspicuous place (or stay where it is now), since it is purely for aesthetics and not exactly a explanatory image. Epic Genius (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my final thinking about it, especially since I was involved with the uploader in an unrelated dispute, I didn't see much value in continuing to push to remove it.  If someone else wants to take it out, I certainly won't object. BMK (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. I don't know what to do with the image, so I'll leave it for now. Epic Genius (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  images of rail tracks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Williamsburg 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://www.webcitation.org/6HSzVf6pz?url=http://www.bikesbelong.org/what-we-do/federal-policy-funding/why-invest-in-bicycling/williamsburg-bridge-ny/ to http://www.bikesbelong.org/what-we-do/federal-policy-funding/why-invest-in-bicycling/williamsburg-bridge-ny/
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) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Civil Engineer 3 deleted this section according to WP:IPC. (Please see here for the version before the deletion: .) I think that some of the content is interesting and I don't why WP:IPC means that it should be deleted. What do people think about restoring at least some of this section please? Zin92 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has disagreed and so I've restored the section. Zin92 (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture section should be restored? 

message: Had an opportunity to take pictures from high up on Delancey Street. Here are a few of the bridge and Delancey Street in case they're useful (I'm not sure).
File:Delancey Street and Williamsburg Bridge (65676).jpg
File:Delancey Street and Williamsburg Bridge (65706).jpg
File:Williamsburg Bridge (65730p).jpg
 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few photos 

message: I've seen an early 1930's film that calls the bridge "The Hebrew Pass-Over". Interesting, but I hesitate to put it in the article. Saxophobia (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames