Talk:Tower Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

City of London or not???[edit]

In the History > Opening section it states: It is the only one of the Trust's bridges not to connect the City of London to the Southwark bank, the northern landfall being in Tower Hamlets. However, in the "Tower Bridge today" section, in the caption to the first picture it states: The bridge connects The Borough (Southwark, south of the river, left of picture) to the heart of the City of London. Clearly both statements can't be true, but I'm afraid I don't know London well enough to know which (if either) is correct. Hoping someone with more knowledge can help. A Long September (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture caption may be a case of poetic licence. Removing 'heart of' makes it factually correct. (I don't think mentioning Tower Hamlets here helps. It does connect to the City, albeit 'via Tower Hamlets'!)
In the opening section, we might need a qualifier about the bridge not being within the geographic limits of the City... ? -- EdJogg (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, although I have not changed the earlier text -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think mentioning Tower Hamlets is important. If Tower Bridge is connected to The City of London by the sole virtue of the city neighbouring Tower Hamlets, then you could also argue that the bridge connects to Hackney. Nzseries1 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the text, and I think it addresses your concerns. The earlier text also mentions Tower Hamlets. The City is more significant than Hackney since the bridge is owned by the City... -- EdJogg (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing? Access to elevated walkways? Current pedestrian pathway?[edit]

The article is completely silent about access to the walkways (now closed, used only for exhibits?). Are there elevators? Or stairs only? Stair count? What is current pedestrian route? Right straight across same as vehicles? When the bridge is open, can pedestrians still cross by going over the upper route? I'm surprised at the silence given to the pedestrian aspect. 63.194.45.199 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are pedestrian walkways on both sides of the bridge, at road level. These walkways are closed when the bridge opens for shipping. The upper walkways can be accessed via lifts or steps. The upper walkways are not accessible to pedestrians - they are used only by the 'Tower Bridge Experience' tourist, paying exhibition. The inaccessibility of the upper walkways to pedestrian traffic is a source of much inconvenience, particularly to commuters. Stxmld (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of construction - found in a skip![edit]

Here you go; they're clearly out of copyright: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertypicturegalleries/8923147/Photographs-of-Tower-Bridge-being-constructed-are-found-in-a-skip.html Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image: London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg = incorrect description[edit]

Tower Bridge does not connect with 'The Borough' on the south side of the Thames (that's London Bridge) it connects to Bermondsey, a different part of the London Borough of Southwark.

90.200.226.102 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC) freddie 90.200.226.102 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

colors[edit]

There reads: "The bridge's present colour scheme dates from 1977, when it was painted red, white and blue for the Queen Elizabeth II's silver jubilee." So, where is the red? I can see white and blue but not red. 85.217.36.130 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond?[edit]

Wasn't the Tower Bridge also featured as a Secret Service Headquarter in a James Bond movie (or maybe a similar movie)? -- megA (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities during construction[edit]

Is there a definitive list of the people killed during the construction of Tower Bridge? So far I can find

John Church 1887
William Carnegie 1893
Edward Burns 1894
The Evening Telegraph says there were ten fatalities. jmb (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replica in Suzhou[edit]

No information about the replica in Suzhou?

This collection includes even the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Alexandre III Bridge and, of course, the Tower Bridge from London.

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2012/07/24/chinas-builds-tower-bridge/ http://travel.aol.co.uk/2012/07/05/tower-bridge-replica-china/ http://www.nadernazemi.org/2012/07/tower-bridge-in-china-suzhou-builds-its.html#!/2012/07/tower-bridge-in-china-suzhou-builds-its.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original hydraulic power source[edit]

Was the bridge powered by steam pumps right from the start? I remember being told that it was originally connected to the hydraulic mains and the steam engines were installed later, when the mains closed down? --Roly (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The London Hydraulic Main was still serving the Bridge when we installed the first half of the replacement machinery in the 1970s 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)

Commencement of Construction[edit]

The date in the text was altered from 1886 to 1887 but no authority has been cited, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K2 relevance[edit]

In the incidents section: "At the time, the building contractor Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd. was in the midst of constructing a new office tower known as "K2""

This doesn't seem relevant to the closure of the bridge.. Philipwhiuk (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Named after the Tower?[edit]

I've always assumed Tower Bridge to be named after the two towers at either end of the bridge. What evidence is there that it was actually named after the Tower of London? — Smjg (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most bridges in London are named after the area they are in, but a fair question. I can't find a definitive source, but a look round the area also yields "Tower Hill", "Tower Gateway" and "Tower Hamlets" for e.g. Paulbrock (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about those locations in the vicinity. But this doesn't really tell us what was named after what.... — Smjg (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://londonist.com/2015/01/how-londons-thames-bridges-got-their-names Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something in the time lapse video[edit]

I suppose the best thing to be said for this is the caption 'Time lapse video of Tower Bridge', because that is just what it is. It isn't a time lapse video of Tower Bridge doing anything interesting (like opening), but just of it continuing to exist. Nice time lapse of the clouds going by, admittedly, but that isn't very relevant to this article. Am I missing something?. Does this video actually add anything useful to the story this article tells that isn't already told by all the still pictures?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, gone. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tower Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colorized construction photo[edit]

Here is an earlier 1899 construction photo. If anyone is interested, then you might want to follow up to determine if the B&W version isn't copyrighted for use on Wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery or not?[edit]

An editor has added [1][2][3] a gallery repeatedly, despite it being promptly removed by other editors. Should we keep it?

I find galleries to be a poor way of using images and rarely appropriate. They show images that are too small and crowded to be a useful use of such images; if you want to see what's there, show the image, don't hide it. This gallery is also a poorly chosen set of images, with half of them unrelated to the others and simply too small to make out. The gallery is justified on the basis of being a sequence of the bridge opening (4 images, plus a mismatched one that is important to show the final position, but taken from another sequence) - this might be justified as a gallery, but only if the images were big enough to see.

Overall, I just don't see this article as needing a great many images - Tower Bridge is iconic, but doesn't take many images to show it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tower 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tower 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weight conversions[edit]

Currently, mentions of tonnes are converted to short tons but mentions of tons, presumably long tons, are not converted at all. Given that long and short tons and tonnes are all fairly similar, I don't know if changing over 70,000 tons of concrete to over 70,000 long tons (71,000 t; 78,000 short tons) would add much but the current approach does seem inconsistent. Cavrdg (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Street signage[edit]

Hi, the "street signage" photograph in the article in clearly for London Bridge. I don't know what should be done, remove the photo or find an correct one, but obviously, this makes little sense, especially as the article claims how well advised it is earlier

Because of this, Tower Bridge is sometimes confused with London Bridge

Anyway, Shadowssettle(talk) 16:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The street sign in the article would appear to be this one on Googlw Maps which as can be seen was taken on a completely different bridge .... so I'd support removal .... I can't see a reason for the sign being here ? .... –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sign "LONDON BRIDGE" quite clearly must have been photographed on London Bridge, the next crossing upstream. It is a common mistake. Geoffrey BH 17:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)
  •  Done - Removed - If there is an explanation as why the London Bridge signage is in this article I'd be happy to hear and would be happy to revert. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bascule operation[edit]

Why is there no mention of the bascule operation in the lead? Jprw (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a bit in. The lead was out of sync with the body, with claims in the former not in the latter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tower Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Review[edit]

Lead/infobox[edit]

  • Construction time period could be included in the lead.
  • Important events in the bridge's 20th and 21st century history could be included in the lead, as well as its Grade I listing.
  • Furthermore, some important elements from Reaction and Incidents section could be included/summarized in the lead at your discretion.
  • The bridge's total length is 801 ft in the infobox but 800 ft in the article. Unless the number given in the article is the real total length, the discrepancy needs a ref.
  • Two numbers are cited for the longest span. Why?
  • Some numbers in the infobox need refs since they're not cited in the article (i.e. clearance below)
  • The imperial unit system should be included first in the infobox, since that's the style used throughout the article.
Addressed these. As the infobox is supposed to summarise the article along with the lead, anything not backed up there doesn't just need a reference, it needs to be added to the body (with a source) explaining itself. However, fiddling with infobox fields is difficult to keep on top of, and can lead to heated arguments, so I try and avoid doing major work on them unless I'm very sure of my ground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all of these points look good now to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 History[edit]

  • Sir John Wolfe Barry was appointed engineer and Sir Horace Jones the architect (who was also one of the judges). Is this to say Jones had a hand in appointing himself as architect? Not an actual review concern, just curious.
  • Jones died in 1887, and George D. Stevenson took over the project. Who was George D. Stevenson? Was he an architect? An engineer? Both?
  • An Act of Parliament stipulated that a tug boat should be on station to assist vessels in danger when crossing the bridge, a requirement that remained in place until the 1960s. This statement appears disconnected and out-of-place in the Opening section, unless this act was passed around the time of the opening ceremony. If so, the date should be specified, and if not, this fact should be included elsewhere.
  • The high-level open-air walkways between the towers gained a reputation for prostitutes and pickpockets ... Though the first sentence in this paragraph may have been true before the 20th century, the rest of the events detailed here were during the 20th century, and are definitely not relevant to the bridge's opening. Moving this paragraph elsewhere is recommended.
  • It was a 150 hp horizontal cross-compound engine, built by Vickers Armstrong Ltd. at their Elswick works in Newcastle upon Tyne. It was fitted with a flywheel having a 9-foot (2.7 m) diameter and weighing 9 tons, and was governed to a speed of 30 rpm. I think it's more appropriate for these mechanical details about the third engine to be discussed in the Hydraulic system section instead.
  • Its colours were subsequently restored to blue and white. I'm not sure where this fits in the bridge's paint scheme timeline. Is it 1) The bridge was painted red, white, and blue in 1977 but repainted back to blue and white before the 2008 repainting or 2) The bridge was painted red, white, and blue in 1977 until the 2008 repainting? If 1), this needs to be clarified, preferably with years; if 2), this statement can be deleted since it is then redundant (earlier sentences already say that the bridge was being repainted in 2008).
  • A new lighting system was designed by Eleni Shiarlis ... Who/what is Eleni Shiarlis? A person? A company?
  • This was to allow structural maintenance work to take place on the timber decking, lifting mechanism and waterproofing the brick arches on the bridge's approaches. This sentence is phrased quite awkwardly, as it sounds like "structural maintenance work" was being done on"waterproofing the brick arches", which doesn't make any sense. My guess is that structural maintenance work and waterproofing were two separate tasks.

2 Design[edit]

  • ... which can be raised to an angle of 86 degrees to allow river traffic to pass I watched a video of the bridge raising, and it can be raised to a variety of different angles based on the type of traffic, so maybe revise as "up to an angle of 86 degrees" if that's the maximum.
  • One of the chimneys on the bridge, which can be mistaken for a lamp post, connects up to an old fireplace in a guardroom of the Tower of London. It is long-disused. Seems to be an almost trivial detail, given a lot of other structural features on the bridge that are not mentioned, like finer-level designs and decorations of the walkways, bridge spans, and bridge towers. Consider expanding Structure section to be more encompassing.
  • ... by night, two red lights in the same position. This isn't an independent clause, which it should be since it's separated from the clause before by a semi-colon.

6 Incidents[edit]

  • I notice that coverage of incidents of Tower Bridge seem to end at 2009. I'm not exactly sure of any notability standards events have to satisfy in order to be included in this list, but I'm positive that at least a few more note-worthy incidents took place on/near the bridge since 2009. For example, I found this relatively recent closure of the bridge due to a "suspicious package". Not sure if you want to use that one specifically since I'm not sure of its notability, but at least some more recent incidents need to be included.
The incidents section seems to be a mixed bag of popular culture stuff. My general rule of thumb is to include it if you can write a paragraph's worth of material. If multiple news outlets carry the story in different ways, that's a good reason to include it. Consensus at WP:RSP is the London Evening Standard is okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not sure what level of revision is needed to fix this section up. If you believe the work proves to be more than minor tweaking/additions, then I might have to fail this promotion on the account of too much work needs to be done to achieve "broad coverage". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed large parts of the article, and unfortunately, I just think a lot more work needs to be done to improve the article to GA-status, especially with regards to coverage. The Design section barely discusses any of the architectural details/significance of the bridge and its towers (can start here for research), which is already quite troublesome given that the article was nominated for the Arts and architecture category. However, the Incidents section also appears to need more work, as incident coverage does not go beyond 2009. I am sorry to have to decline the nomination. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to ping me when this article is ready for renomination. I'll be happy to review it again. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tower_Bridge&oldid=1193941886"