Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bridge

Pennsylvania High‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia High‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chart

What is the ID# in the chart? == Samuel Wantman 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

States identify their bridges by number; many states mark these numbers on the bridges. All of these numbers are in the National Bridge Inventory data, most of which was submitted by the states to the feds. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about explaining this at National Bridge Inventory (or whatever it should be titled) and then linking "ID Number" on the chart? ==Samuel Wantman 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Not sure if that's the best place to have the explanation, as it's a state-level numbering, but I can't think of any better place. Will do. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've created a stub there. --SPUI (talk) 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bridge has some pretty nice views, but the police won't let you take pictures of it, citing "security concerns". What rights can't you take away from someone, citing those concerns? By the way, you cannot reply to this post, it's for your own safety.

Categorization of bridge articles

Here is the discussion regarding categorization: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_and_subcategories. Here is the discussion about bridge categories specificially: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bridges#Categorization and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges#Bridge_Categorization Cacophony 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cacophony is correct. The issue has been discussed for over a year, leading to a recent rewrite with the guideline changes. Bridges should be in both geographical subcategories and toll bridge subcategories. -- Samuel Wantman 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is consistant with the categorization of every other bridge in the USA. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "issue", if one can say that, that is being made far more complex and confusing then it need be. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The droping of the Bridges in Foo category, does address this issue, and prevents the redundant listing of articles in both sub-cats and the parent cats, which is the issue that i am trying to address here. The Category of Toll bridges in Foo, does satasify both the so called toll brodge and geographic requirement. This sub cat is listed in Bridges in Foo, which would satasify the Bridges by geeographic location requairment, and Toll Brodges in the United States, which also satasifies geographic requiremnts as well as the toll bridge requiremnt being that the category is also a sub in Toll Bridges. With the one category type meeting the "requirements" then the addation of the Bridges in Foo category to articles with the present Toll Bridges in Foo only goes to create a redudant listing. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict so some of this is duplication) After a year of discussion, the consensus is that categorization is primarily a means of browsing. Subcategorization was very important before it was possible to navigate around large categories with a table of contents. With the advent of CategoryTOC it is now possible to navigate categories with thousands of articles. Recent discussions have been talking about having sub-categories fully populated up to the "subject article" level, so for example, Category:Film directors would be fully populated along with all the subcategories of Film directors by nationality. The reason for this is that users would be as likely and perhaps more likely to want to browse through the large category as they would the small one. This is also the case with bridges. Limiting categorization to the lowest level, in this case the subcategories of toll bridges makes it possible to browse through toll bridge categories but very difficult to browse through bridge categories. At the bridge project we agreed to populate bridges up to the state level. In a sense this is more complicated, but I think it makes all the categories more useful. -- Samuel Wantman 08:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this subpage of Wikipedia:Categorization -- Samuel Wantman 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats a really poor rational. I would replace you complicated eith confucing, and either way if you describe something as complicated, its not usefull. If you are going to do it this really inefficent way that you are doing it, then you mine as well either drop the sub cats all together or add the category heriarchy direcly to each article. I am sorry buy your category rational and implementation, consensus or not, is poor and inefficient. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the page you sited, i do not see as proving your point, matter of fact it works more in opposing the current scheime. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this paragraph? -- Samuel Wantman 08:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE ALL OR NOTHING RULE — When the subcategories are a few incomplete subsets of the category. Do MOST of the articles belong in only the main category and not in one of the existing subcategories? Is it impossible or awkward to complete the set of subcategories and move all the articles to the subcategories so that NO articles are left in the category? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", duplication is a good idea. For example, actor Marlon Brando is in Category:Best Actor Oscar and its parent Category:Film actors. While it is possible to add Category:Actors who never won an Oscar to complete the categorization scheme with all actors being in one or the other of the subcategories and none in the parent category, this wouldn't make the categories any more useful, and would make it much harder to categorize actors and search for them in categories. Another example of this is Category:Bridges in New York City and Category:Toll bridges in New York City. ALL the toll bridges are listed in both categories. These situations come about when one hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States). In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy. It also makes it easier to see a complete list of the bridges in each location.

Yes i did read it, and based upon the exaples given, i dont see any of the categories involved would quailfy based upon thses examples. Also the inclusion of the bridge statement, is a bad idea. In that in the way it is structured it disregards the idea of all or nothing, it basically set a precident for the used of category dupilcation on virtuarly all categories. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:PATCO Speedline.svg

The image File:PATCO Speedline.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References, Streetcar Tracks

I've just added ref needed tags to the history section pertaining to the existence of the streetcar tracks. From talking with a number of transit historians in the area, consensus is is that the tracks were never installed (due to streetcar gauge incompatibility issues on separate sides of the river), but i have not yet been able to locate any reliable documented sources to prove this either way. I'll be looking into this issue as time permits; but overall the article needs more refs in general. Hiroe (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

Yes, a non-notable production of a play was set in Philly, with some scenes occurring under the bridge. This item tells us NOTHING of substance about the bridge, nor does it demonstrate an impact on popular culture. As the WP:CONSENSUS template explains: "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". However, there are no reliable sources describing how the bridge impacted popular culture as a result of this. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summary, the fact that a very notable production of Godspell (the Walnut Street Theatre is one of the major theatres in Philadelphia, not some fly-by-night operation - please see our srticle on it) was set under the bridge is an indication of the role the bridge plays in Philadelphia as a highly recognizable symbol of the city -- much as the Brooklyn or George Washington Bridges would be in NYC. Godspell doesn't call for that location, it was deliberately chosen for this production. To say that it says nothing about the bridge's relationship to the community is simply untrue and an untenable proposition.

Now, according to BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is going on, and I'm going to return it to that status now. SummerPhD is aware, I'm certain, that to revert again is not only edit-warring, but goes counter to BRD. BMK (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Godspell is notable. Yes, the Walnut Street Theatre is notable. I cannot seem to locate an article on Godspell (Wallnut Street Theatre production). Typically, maintenance templates remain on an article while the discussion is on-going. The consensus warning for this is: "When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary". Why have you removed this seemingly applicable template? I get that you feel this inclusion of the Bridge in a play means we should mention it. However, you have not objected to the removal of other productions -- notable ones. Should Woody Allen's "Manhatten" be listed in the dozens of articles for landmarks shown in it? The "In popular culture" section for the Liberty Bell could easily list several thousand notable TV shows, plays, movies, poems, sculptures, novels, knock knock jokes and Bazooka Joe cartoons that mention it.

You stated that "The fact that someone set a production of Godspell under the BFB tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity to the audience as a symbol of Phuladelphia". What does Ryan Oczkowski's choice tell us about the bridge's impact on popular culture? Source? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." Your first removal says "Let's not do this please - the fact that someone set a production of Godspell under the BFB tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity to the audience as a symbol of Phuladelphia -- the pay does NOT call for that location)". There is no explanation for the removal of an apparently valid template, nor any attempt to address the issue it identifies. Your second removal and comment above state that the maintenance template should remain off "while discussion is going on". While I hardly see adding maintenance templates as "bold" (and the application of BRD as a reach), I attempted discussion (above). Per the guideline you cited, "if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a few days, go ahead and make your edit." So I waited a week with no comment. So I made the bold edit of adding a maintenance template to identify an issue in the article. Now you've removed it a third time with no new discussion and this non-discussion-discussion: "There is no distinction between an edit which places a clean up tage and any other edit, they're both subject to BRD. Please don't diseemble, an explanation was given. Discuss on talk page, don't edit war". Saying you have discussed is not discussion. The item clearly does not "explain the subject's impact on popular culture", it is "simply listing appearances". You have not explained how this is incorrect or does not apply, other than to state that it "tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity". No, it tells us the director set the play in Philadelphia and had to set scenes in Philadelphia somewhere. How does this show the bridge had an impact on popular culture, other than appearing in this one production? It doesn't.

Incidentally, the repeated warnings not to edit war ring rather hollow when you ignore discussion and edit to your preferred version. I will again wait a few days, then go ahead and make my edit. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing sacrosanct about a cleanup tag, it represents a single editor's view that there is a problem to be fixed, and if another editor disagrees, BRD specifies that the article returns to the status quo ante while discussion takes place. When you continue to revert to your preferred version, you are edit warring in violation of BRD. Returning the article to the condition it was in before the disputs is simply following BRD.

As for the rest of your comment, I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. There's a discussion here, I have participated in it, there has been no consensus arrived at. Such a state of affairs is not authorization for you to attempt to impose your own preferred version. Unless we can reach a consensus between us, or other editors join in to participate and a consensus is thus reached, there should be no changes made in regard to this discussion. BMK (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the discussion for a week. After I "advance(d) a potential edit on the article's talk page", there was "no response ... after a few days". I went ahead and made the edit. Then you return to revert the edit with no additional discussion and tell me not to edit war and to discuss it on the talk page? To review: You cited BRD regarding the addition of a maintenance tag -- a tag you dislike because it targets material you like. You've removed the tag without giving an explanation of how the tag does not fit the situation. The unsourced content that is a mere mention of the bridge in a non-notable production tells us nothing about the bridge. Yeah, I guess it might have been in the production. Were any other Philadelphia landmarks demonstrating some unknowable impact on popular in culture in this production? Imagine how long a list of appearances we could dream up and add to thousands of articles that tell us nothing about their subjects. Lenny Bruce's impact on popular culture is clearly demonstrated by his showing up in an REM song -- they didn't have to include his name... big impact.

Your strange idea that you reverting me means your version stays is, well, strange. Hell, it's nonsensical. I know you want the consensus template to go away. I know you don't like that editors watch the template and arrive to excise the material you feel is somehow "valuable". Heck, I myself wonder how I've managed to look at the bridge for several decades without knowing that some non-notable director briefly used it as a backdrop in his non-notable production of the show. I have to wonder what other insignificant, random occurrences I don't know about.

To get down to brass tacks: please explain how this is not simply listing an appearance and how it "explain(s) the subject's impact on popular culture". Otherwise, I fail to see how the template doesn't apply here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the process here is what's odd. I'll get back to you on the other when I'm a little less annoyed at you. BMK (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After three weeks, we still have nothing to indicate how this is not simply listing an appearance and how it "explain(s) the subject's impact on popular culture". Heck, we don't even have a cite showing that anyone has ever mentioned this anywhere (other than here and copies of this article, which are all I've found). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never the worlds longest bridge?

This article, and all the other sources I've found, say that the Ben Franklin was, when first built, the worlds longest suspension bridge. I'm puzzled about the qualification: wasn't it the longest bridge of any kind? What, in 1926, could possibly have been longer? TypoBoy (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well out of my depth here. I assume we are referring to the longest span. Is that from pier to pier or what? Pont de Québec, for example is a bit longer and older. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing any specific facts one way or the other, it is quite possible at any moment in time for a bridge of some other type to be longer than the longest suspension bridge. The length of suspension bridges is measured by the span from pier to pier, and they are thus limited by the available technology. Other bridges, however, will be measure by the total length of the bridge, and can involve multiple spans across multiple piers -- see, for instance, Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. Check out List of longest bridges in the world and compare it to List of longest suspension bridge spans. BMK (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see I created confusion by using the word "span" when I meant "bridge". SummerPhD answered the question I was trying to ask. The upshot is that the article is right to qualify the record as "longest suspension span", because the Quebec Bridge is older, and has a longer span. TypoBoy (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article lacks citations for the many details included. I added three external links, which may be of help in adding citations. The remark about senior citizen discounts is incorrect, there is a new program which does integrate the discount with EzPass. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Franklin 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/20130625051749/http://www.michaelpennphotography.com:80/TheBenFranklinBridge.html to http://www.michaelpennphotography.com/TheBenFranklinBridge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benjamin Franklin 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]