Talk:Golden Gate Bridge/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Disputed: Most photographed?

What is with the need to arbitrarily decide that the Golden Gate Bridge is "the most photographed bridge in the world". It's not like anyone dilligently counts and records the number of photographs that are taken of it, or indeed any other bridge. Citing as a reference a Frommers' guide which makes the same romantic-but-unsubstantiated claim (with no basis for it) doesn't make it the truth. Perhaps London's Tower Bridge is more photographed, or maybe the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. No-one knows... so why put it in the article? mjlodge 15:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that we include the atomic weight of Helium in its article; facts are interesting things to include in articles. Is this a fact with a lot of deeply researched, heavily corss-referenced, peer-reviewed literary articles and other proof behind it? No. But it does seem to garner some good support, even if it's not from you. Frommer's, after all, is a reputable publisher of tourist guidebooks and they probably have a more-stringent editorial process than allowing anybody to come in and edit and/or comment-upon the article. Why can't you accept what they say? And if you have another bridge in mind, state your case and the Wiki community can evaluate it.

Atlant 16:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't accept it because of the difference between fact and opinion. The atomic weight of helium is a physical fact measurable to a given degree of accuracy and verifiable by anyone else who cares to repeat the same experiment(s). Whether or not the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed in the world is not even something that is measured, never mind a measurement that is accurate, verifyable or repeatable. The Frommers' quote is editorial opinion -- totally fine for a travel guide, which deals in the romance of travel as much as facts such as the details of train schedules, but this is an encyclopedia article. My opinion is that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most beautiful bridge in the world, and yours is that it's the most photographed. Both are equally unqualified editorial opinion inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

mjlodge 01:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do you know Frommers doesn't have data? Do you suppose that camera/film companies *MIGHT* keep track of what people are shooting pictures of, if only through the occasional marketing survey? Perhaps Frommers has asked people what they take pictures of when they travel. Maybe it's based on how many rolls of film are sold at the souvenir shops near each bridge. Maybe the San Francisco department of tourism sent someone out to count people with cameras. Maybe it's based on a survey of http://images.google.com/. Just because you (and yes, I admit it, I) don't have the data at hand doesn't mean it ain't true. And given the Frommers citation, I think you should accept it.

Atlant 13:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, you have no idea of what "fact" means, nor what a supporting reference is. You're just guessing and making baseless assertions. There is no way to count the number of photos taken of a public structure, and your suggestions don't provide support for your opinion. "Most photographed" is simply an opinion, and therefore will be removed.

mjlodge 02:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, reversion to insults as a method of defending your position. Sorry, but that isn't a fact either. I'll; stand by Frommer's professional opinion as being good enough. I'd also welcome input from other editors since you seem to be the only one with criticisms of this point.

Atlant 12:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This assertion seems to be an article of faith for you -- for whatever reason -- so explaining a logical argument may be a waste of my time as blind faith, by definition, can't be swayed by rational argument. But here goes: the following is what makes a logical argument to back up your assertion:

1) The burden of proof is on you to show that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed. Making an assertion and then effectively saying "prove me wrong" doesn't make the assertion true (because it says nothing about the original assertion)

2) You must not only come up with some measurement of the number of photographs taken of the bridge with known accuracy, but you must also show that the number is larger than any other bridge. The burden of proof is actually higher than that for the atomic weight of Helium, because you not only need a measurement, you need to be able to compare it to many other measurements.

3) Repetition of the same assertion is not a logical argument. The Internet is full of this, but many people repeating the same thing does not make that thing true. In the rational world, logical argument is the only way to show something is true. A reference to a valid logical argument is what you need -- not a reference to a repeat of the same assertion. Frommers is a reputable travel guide, I agree, but they don't write encyclopedias -- they write travel editorial. Show us a reference from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia for a better argument. See Wiki article on citing authoritative sources.

4) There must be some measurement of some kind for the number of photographs taken, with a *known* margin of error for the number of photographs. You need this for two reasons. The first one is so that you have a number with some known degree of confidence, and the second is...

5) There must be a way to do a valid comparison. So there must be comparable measurements for every other contending bridge in the world with a known margin of error. The measurement methodology does not have to be the same (though that would be best), but you do need to know the margin of error in order to be able to do a valid comparison.

6) There only needs to be one counter-example to render a proof invalid. For example, I live in San Francisco and so even though the burden is on you to show that any of your suggested measurement methodologies are authoritative and comparable, I did a little research. The fact is that there are no "camera police" on the bridge asking people if they have a camera and how many photos they have taken. And even if there were, they could not count the people taking photos of the bridge from afar, or on tour buses, or... you get the picture (pardon the pun). They do count the number of cars and cyclists who use the bridge, though -- perhaps these are better candidate figures for the article.

7) Finally, and this is a nuance but is perhaps important -- clearly, there is some number of photographs taken of the bridge -- and every other bridge world-wide -- each year. But you don't know what it is, nor can you cite anyone else who has figured it out *and* done the comparison. So it could be that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed -- but we just don't know.

The strength and weakness of Wikis is that anyone can make edits, so of course I cannot stop your "faith-based initiative". It's just like the France page, which seems to get vandalized at least once a day -- but in the end is always restored to health. If you like edit wars, head on over to the Opus Dei page instead...

mjlodge 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're the one on the attack. Why don't YOU call Frommer's and ask them where their statistic comes from?

By the way, here's another claim in another article for you to attack:

Mount Monadnock has long been described as the second-most-climbed mountain in the world (after Mount Fuji in Japan). Since 1990, it has been suggested that so many of Fuji's climbers have shifted to newly available public transportation for that ascent, that Monadnock's annual total of foot traffic now exceeds Fuji's.

So far as I know, there's no tollbooth at the base of either mountain, so they probably don't have the actual count of climbers accurate to five or six significant figures.

My point, of course, is that even encyclopedias accept these sorts of statements under the color of "generally recognized to be credible", and either of us could find hundreds of such examples whether here in Wikipedia or in a "real" encyclopedia. I don't understand why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this statement (most-photographed), ESPECIALLY because it is backed-up by a citation to a company that has a pretty-good reputation in assessing such things.

Atlant 17:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it because it degrades the quality of the article and despite all my attempts, you simply refuse to engage in any form of rational debate or form a logical argument for your edit. This cannot make for a good quality Wikipedia. I don't feel sorry for wanting to improve the quality of the Wikipedia -- but I am sorry you feel this is somehow inappropriate or constitutes a "bee in my bonnet". If I supported your position, would you be ticking me off for having a bee in my bonnet about supporting you?

Re: Frommers' reputation in assessing "most photographed" of anything. Yet another baseless assertion -- what is your basis for believing this?

Re: Mount Fuji. Also has no basis for saying "most climbed". Two wrongs don't make a right.

If everyone continues to make edits that are not backed by facts or logical argument, the quality of the Wikipedia degrades. When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again. So the moment your "evidence" fails to support your position, you ignore it and move on. What article is next for the same treatment? George Clooney (or Brad Pitt, or <insert celeb here>) as the Most Photographed Celebrity? Ground Zero as the Most Photographed Spot In America? Mount Fuji as the Most Photographed Mountain In Japan? The Buddha staute on Po Lin island as the Most Photographed Outdoor Bronze Statue Of Buddha In Asia?

mjlodge 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again.

You showed nothing of the sort. I offered you several ways to prove or disprove my claim and you've done none of them.

Atlant 18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I came to this from peer review and I'll risk pouring rocket fuel on the fire.

it is not the most photographed bridge ^[1], that title belongs to the Forth rail bridge.
it is not the most beautiful bridge, that title belongs to a small bridge high in the French Alps which is a secret known only to a few locals.
etc.
Frommers really does state what it states even though it's wrong.

Neutral point of view means it's perfectly okay to state incorrect facts, as long as we are clear about the source of those claims. This means that it doesn't matter if it's a true fact; what matters is that someone important claims it is a fact. You can leave this in.

Oh, and you should visit Venice one day. Mozzerati 20:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Tee hee :-) Re: Vencie -- yup, or Florence, for that matter. Cheers mjlodge 03:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you should visit Venice one day.

I don't know about the other contributors to this thread, but...

I have been to Venice! Nice place. But I have more pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. :-)

Atlant 10:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notes

^ I asked my cat and she is absolutely sure this is true.

Images

Comments Prior to May 2006

Image:Stamp-ctc-golden-gate-bridge.jpg

The Golden Gate Bridge was built during the 1930s

Well, it might be public domain, but why should we make U.S. taxpayers pay for the bandwidth?

Revenge for tearing up the Kyoto agreement?

Please e-mail the image to XXXXXX and have him upload it. Apparently, he knows how and where to do so. --LMS

OK. I've sent him the information (rather than send a huge unsolicited binary email) - GWO

Would anyone mind if added the "Golden Gate Bridge by night" image to the article? Picturewise the GGB is underrepresented in comparison to the Bay Bridge ;-) --Dschwen 19:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aparently no one did, so be it. (I now realize the the senselessness of the posting, so much for being bold ;-) ) --Dschwen 13:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only think I'd suggest is that you push the photo over to the right-hand column. This seems to be more "Wiki-standard" and it avoids future problems when someone inserts/moves a text header that would interfere with a photo that is left-aligned.

Atlant 14:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the picture Image:Golden Gate Bridge from underneath.jpg because it doesn't seem to really add anything to the article. OTOH, looking at the expanded version, I could be wrong... --Jason McHuff 01:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, I added it back, since it does show the massiveness of it. --Jason McHuff 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added in an image I took from Fort Mason in April 2005, showing the bridge against a glorious golden sunset. I thought it was kind of appropriate for the suicide section to show a "golden end". I also changed the caption of one of the wide shots, which wrongly identified it as being "photographed from the Presidio". Clearly it is photographed from Fort Mason and the roofs of the wharves are clearly visible. See Fort Mason for a wider view. --Jumbo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

May 2006

This article is way too picture-heavy. I feel like several pictures not directly related to the article's contents can be moved to the Photos section at the end of the article. Stack 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest to remove pictures not directly related to the article's contents entirely from the article. Furthermore Galleries like in the Photos section are discouraged (see WP:NOT). The place for galleries is commons. --Dschwen 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See a few lines above as to why I originally put the "golden sunset" photograph in the suicide section. This bridge is one of the most photographed in the world and a reader is going to expect a lot of photographs, as compared to (say) the Hercilio Luz Bridge. Also see the section on the bridge in popular culture. We're not talking about any bridge here. --Jumbo 01:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated on SuperJumbo's user page: Please refrain from making changes which go against apparent consensus. In this article, the picture was removed because it is one of the many which need not be in the article. Collections of pictures belong on Commons [[1]]. In addition, putting that picture in the Suicides section is extremely morbid, and, to me, violates the NPOV policy. Please wait until an agreement is come to on this page. Stack 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The "golden sunset" photograph was placed in the Suicides section in early January. At some later date it was moved into the first section. It has been an uncontested part of the article for several months. I see no sudden consensus in the past few days for its removal. It is a striking image, illustrating the gold in "Golden Gate" very well. Unilaterally removing this image before coming to an agreement on this page seems to be rather unmannerly. If we want to cull the photographs on the page (and I see no reason why we should) then let us list all the photographs and see if we can work out the ones with most support for remaining in the article. In fact, out of all the editors who have contributed to this article, I see only two newcomers in favour of reducing the number of images. This is hardly a consensus. --Jumbo 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Newcomer?! This wouldn't make my opinion less important. So check your facts before launching ad hominems. --Dschwen 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My point remains. If you want to make contested changes, please try to find a consensus before acting. This is good wikimanners. --Jumbo 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, it is not good wikimanners. Not each and every edit has to be discussed on the article talk-page. And how can I know beforehand whether an edit is going to be contested? Anyway, we are discussing now (quite off-topic until now). The sunset picture does not add significantly to the article, the bridge is a dark shadow and we all know how a sunset looks like. Furthermore its placement in the suicides section is off topic (and one might argue tasteless as well). Images should not be means to prettify an article, but they should contribute encyclopedically. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT a gallery, too many images just clutter the page and make it harder to read for low-badwidth users. --Dschwen 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo, can you please explain why you feel the image is appropriate? Can you understand that many people will find it somewhat morbid, and perhaps offensive? Stack 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

End of life, end of day. Bridge and sunset. The connection is obvious. Perhaps we should cut the entire section from the article if it bothers people. Not that anybody has complained. I think if it were morbid and offensive we'd be getting a lot more discussion. Doesn't seem to be a problem. --Jumbo 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is really poetic (seriously), but since we are trying to write an encyclopedia I'd prefer to have pictures that show more of the bridge and its specific features (like the suicide-phone picture). Apart from the end-of-life/day allegory the picture does not add substantially to the article. --Dschwen 06:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You have made your own personal feelings plain. In this community, you are certainly entitled to this. --Jumbo 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, since only the three of us have been discussing this (hardly a good enough number to have a relevant discussion, apparently), I'm requesting additional discussion on this issue. Stack 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Request for Comment made here. Stack 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded to request for comment. Moved image to photos section because the image did not DIRECTLY illustrate the suicide section (note: this is not an invitation to photograph a jumper. Please leave this section with just the callbox photo). --M @r ē ino 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved "golden" image back to lead section, where it has been since February. I have adjusted the caption to underscore the direct relevance. --Jumbo 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether it has been there since february or not is not really relevant. The picture is below the standard. It shows half the bridge, and that half only as a silouette. I has an ugly foreground and two branches sticking in from the side. It brings no additional value to the article. Sorry for beeing so blunt, but subtlety apparently does not cut it. Other people have already moved the picture down into the gallery section. What you are doing here is bordeline revert war! --Dschwen 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. I have never thought that you were being subtle. Quite the reverse in fact. The photograph is a free one illustrating the gold of the Golden Gate. No photograph of the bridge after sundown is going to show more than a silhouette. It is not included in the article to show every nut and bolt in the structure. It is a beautiful photograph of a beautiful bridge. In this wikicommunity, the fact that it has been in the lead section since February after having been in other sections is quite relevant: the only consensus - one you apparently agree with, unless you were being "subtle" - is that it should be included in the article. The matter of where it is best placed is the only matter of minor disagreement. And, on a technical point, no 2D photograph is going to show more than half of the bridge. I would have that that went without saying. --Jumbo 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo, please take a breather and read the Three-revert rule. Stack 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reposting here for posterity, from my talk page: "I'm having a hard time reading your contribution as anything other than provocative. Have I missed something? Please explain. --Jumbo 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)"

I posted that link because you have made a large number of reverts in this dispute. This does not bode well for your credibility in the dispute. The 3RR rule exists for a reason. Stack 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A dispute? Is that what it is? I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and nobody here has come close to three reverts in 24 hours, which is a good sign. I wish a few more people would discuss matters and gain a consensus before taking action.

I don't think anybody need worry about my credibility. I'm up front about what I think. I think the picture is a beautiful photograph of a beautiful bridge, putting the gold into the Golden Gate in a way that no other free image does. Find a better sunset photograph that we can use, and I'll happily support that one. The idea is to improve the quality of the article for our readers. I accept that another editor is squeamish about a "golden end" image being used in the suicides section, so I moved it back to the lead section.

My personal feeling is that the article should be image-heavy. It's a widely photographed bridge and there are a lot of different angles and views and "moods" that should be represented. Cutting the photographs down to three or four is inappropriate, in my eyes, and is something that should be discussed and consensus gained before taking action. I would hope that you agree with what is simple wikimanners. --Jumbo 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it seems we're debating two different things. Since the placement of the aforementioned image seems to no longer be an issue, then as I understand it the current discussion is on the volume of pictures in the article. I actually agree that this particular article should have several pictures, and certainly more than the average article. However, I believe its current incarnation contains too many, and thus some should be moved elsewhere. We do have to consider what Wikipedia is not, even if it doesn't directly support our opinions in this matter. Stack 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Paintwork and nighttime pano

Here is another suggestion: Image:Golden_Gate_Bridge_2003.jpg would be better suited to illustrate the paintwork section. Image:Ggb03162006a.jpg could then be moved to the photo section, where it would complement this daytime pano. Any opinions? Oh, and Image:108972157 l.jpg should be removed from the gallery, it has extremely low quality and is kind of redundant. --Dschwen 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest?

I believe the comments about when Golden Gate wasn't the longest bridge is wrong. I've notified the original author User talk:MichaelJanich. Samw 13:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)

The suspension bridge article lists the fifteen longest, and the Golden Gate is ranked seventh. The oldest of the six surpassing it was built in 1964. I will now change this article to conform to that one.

I'm pretty sure, however, that it had the tallest suspension towers until 2000 or thereabouts, when it was bested in that regard by a bridge in China.

It's not that it's the longest suspension bridge, as it never was. The SF-Oakland Bay Bridge's suspension section is longer and older than the Golden Gate Brigde. The GGB was the longest single span suspension bridge at that time.Gentgeen 19:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Statics prove Golden Gate not the longest, info taken from sats on State Of Michigan, providing proof, IE: The Mackinac Bridge is currently the third longest suspension bridge in the world. In 1998, the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan became the longest with a total suspension of 12,826 feet. The Great Belt Bridge in Halsskov-Sprogoe, Denmark, which also opened in 1998, is the second longest suspension bridge in the world with a total suspension of 8,921 feet. The Mackinac Bridge is the longest suspension bridge in the western hemisphere. The total length of the Mackinac Bridge is 26,372 feet. The length of the suspension bridge (including anchorages) is 8,614 feet. The length from cable bent pier to cable bent pier is 7,400 feet. Length of main span (between towers) is 3,800 feet.Aalar

A flawed entry

This entry is flaw

Removed this:

William Gibson's cyberpunk/science fiction Bridge Trilogy is named for the Golden Gate Bridge, as many scenes take place on the earth-quake broken bridge that has been colonized by squatters.

since the bridge in the novels is the San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge.

Constantly being painted/fading paint

I have no source for this, except remembering reading this, perhaps someone can put their hand on it. The GGB is not continuously painted from one end to the other on a yearly basis, nor does it need repainting because of fading pigments, but mostly needs to be painted at certain points that rust most easily. BLP 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced that line with a short paragraph on the paintwork, with a reference. Jll 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ppl dying while building

Anyone have a count of how many lives were lost during construction? --Duemellon 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of Lanes

Article: On weekday mornings, traffic flows mostly southbound into the city, so four of the six lanes run southbound. Conversely, on weekday afternoons, three lanes run northbound.

In the afternoon, isn't the bridge four lanes northbound? I don't want to change the article because I'm not too sure myself. Also, why is this in the history section anyway? Soltras 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fog

This article needs a picture of the bridge when the fog is rolling in. Preferably with the towers peeking through the fog bank. That is one of the more distinguishing and signature views of this bridge. i am imagining something along the lines of the following two picture [2] [3] David D. (Talk) 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance and definition

The Golden Gate Bridge is the only toll bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area not maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), but by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (as already stated in the infobox). This is even though U.S. Highway 101 and California State Route 1 traverse across the bridge, in actuality, the highways are discontinued between the ends of the bridge. Even more, Route 1 is not even legislatively defined where it runs concurrent with Highway 101, as are all state highways that run concurrently with U.S. and Interstate highways in California. Thus, the highways are there by signage only. --Geopgeop 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Speed limits

This article states that the speed limit was lowered from 55 to 45 mph in October 1983. Yet I have on my office wall some old photos which my dad says were given to him while we were living in the Bay Area (we left in December of that year). One of the photos shows a distinct "45" on the roadway. So...was the person who added the speed limit data wrong, or my dad? Perhaps the photos were given to him as a parting gift when he left his Bay Area job, or maybe he got them later. Any comments?

Failed GA

References is the main reason on why I failed the article, also not a big fan of the gallery section, should be on commons --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jump for Life in place of a suicide barrier?

Is Jump for Life really an alternative to a suicide barrier by any means? Stack 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given no other opinions, I am going to go ahead and reword the part of the article referencing Jump for Life. This isn't an alternative to a suicide barrier, but is, rather, a way to discourage suicides which use the bridge. Stack 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Measurements

The height of 746 ft has been incorrectly converted to 230 m; the correct figure is 227 m. Also, some of the conversions have been done with ridiculous accuracy: span of 4,200 ft to 1,280.16 m for example (a persumed 1 ft accuracy would justify a one-decimal metric conversion; however, it's customary to list bridge lengths with 1 m accuracy). The bridge's home page would likely be the best source for these statistics; notice that it has a more accurate total length of 8,981 ft (2,737 m) – the 1.7 mi given here equals 8,976 ft. Anshelm '77

Seismic Retrofit

There's a major seismic retrofit project that isn't mentioned in this article. It's a huge deal for the bridge, very important for the bridge's health, very long term and super expensive. The project will increase the bridge's ability to withstand earthquakes from about 7.0 to 8.0 on the Richter scale... I think. I'm not sure how to eloquently phrase things for Wikipedia, nor do I know how in depth one would want to take this topic, but it's all summed up here: [4] for anyone who wants to tackle it.

happy 69th birthday, bridge.

Visibility

Is it true that the Golden Gate Bridge is visible from (outer) space, or even the International Space Station? User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

People who jumped twice

At least one other person has jumped twice...Paul Alarab. Do a google search for the article "Jumpers" published in the New Yorker a few years ago. This is sort of right. The first time he jumped was to commit suicide. The second time, he was out on the steel beam, connected to the railing, but leaning out. He was there to protest going to war in Iraq. The police talked him in, and as he stood upright on the beam, he unhooked himself, slipped, and fell--apparently not a suicide. He survived.

Golden Gate tower?

I noticed that in the top right it says, "Golden Gate tower." Is there a reason it doesn't say "Golden Gate Bridge"? The golden gata alta geht von deutsch nach englisch alta abchen

Fiction - Games - Stunt Island

Whoever erased Stunt Island, claiming unsourced edit, might just as well erase all games from the list. Otherwise, please stay put. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.14 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

The In fiction and film section is excessively large. I support the cleanup suggested above, leaving only the most notable instances, supported by sources independent of the work itself. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Unless sources can be provided for any or all, the list begins to approach original research. Morenooso 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To expand on my "most notable instances" above, works that have the bridge in the background or mention the bridge don't belong here, no matter how well they are sourced. The bridge needs to be integral to the plot. The current list is mostly trivia. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that GTA: San Andreas and Stunt Island are both games where the bridge is an active part of the game. In GTA, even though you can cross the river by air (helicopter or plane) or swimming, the gameplay suggests you drive because it's much easier to steal a car (they're everywhere) and takes less time to cross than swimming. In Stunt Island, one of the stunts requires you to land a plane on the bridge. Actually, they didn't even rename the bridge in SI. 193.136.128.14 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something that is more relevant and approrpiate for the game articles than to this article. The bridge may be important to the game, but the game is not important to (understanding) the bridge. It isn't a symmetric relationship and I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but then that applies to many other references there, other than games. I suggest creating a new article about fiction references, done in many other cases like this. Usually, these lists are "reverse lists" that help to find what's related with what, and are not (generally) useful in encyclopedic content. 193.136.128.14 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with JonHarder ^{talk. Ronbo76 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

Atmospheric optics

Before an edit war breaks out here, let's talk about this with all editors. Should this section even be included in the article? It has almost next to nothing to do with the article's subject. Roguegeek (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the amount and size of the images is completely messing with the formatting of the entire article now. Roguegeek (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many images, most are "artsy" and do not represent the subject very well. A few are quite nice, maybe use one of the more striking images that is clearly the GGB in the Aesthetics section, and include a sentence about it in the prose. The entire section is a non sequitur in content and style, and should not be present. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a solar coronae or the Spectre of the Brocken, Atropos235? How many fog shadows or/and a fogbows have you seen, Atropos235? If you have, you should have known how they look, and if have not why you call the images "artsy"? But whatever. I really do not care any more. I saw and photographed the phenomenas and you could go ahead and delete the section. I only know that many people are interested in seeing the phenomenas, but they do not know where and when to look for them and thanks to you they never will.--Mbz1 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

If one GOOGLE Golden Gate Bridge, one finds may thousands of images and information, but one will not find any similar information or any similar images like the ones that were displayed in the paragraph before Roguegeek removed them as SPAM??? My goal in placing the images at GGB page were to show one more amazing side of Golden Gate Bridge. I strongly believe that the images are unique, interesting and very educational. --Mbz1 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Charles A. Ellis

I thought this article [5] may be interest to those maintaining this article. --Gopherbone 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories: (Main) archives