Jump to content

Talk:Richmond–San Rafael Bridge

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

Infobox image

[edit]

The image in the infobox comes from Caltrans and so isn't (I believe) PD. I propose we replace it with the aerial photo (which I'd readily admit isn't nearly as nice, but which is legal). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roller coaster origin

[edit]

This reference says that the roller coaster design was due to cost issues, not because of seismic factors. http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_11365483?source=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.51.252 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I dispute the statement that it is referred to as the "Richmond Bridge" everwhere except in Richmond. I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life but never in Richmond, and have always called it the San Rafael bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.182 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is an original research. Do you have any reliable sources to verify your claim? Svick (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond – San Rafael Bridge → Richmond–San Rafael Bridge – The spaces around the en dash were deprecated a year ago in updates to MOS:DASH. Relisted. BDD (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move. but to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. I was able to find three spellings hyphen, spaced hyphen, and endash, with hyphen being the most common. Either hyphen or spaced hyphen is fine though. Apteva (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In newspapers a hyphen is almost exclusively used. In books a hyphen is uses 2-3 times as often as an endash.

Comparison from google books:

  • Richmond – San Rafael Bridge (spaced endash) - 0 (current title)
  • Richmond - San Rafael Bridge (spaced hyphen) - 3
  • Richmond–San Rafael Bridge (endash) - 48
  • Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (hyphen) - 128 - most common
  • Richmond/San Rafael Bridge (slash) - 7
  • Richmond San Rafael Bridge (space) - 1

Google news:

  • Richmond—San Rafael Bridge (emdash) - 1
  • Richmond - San Rafael Bridge (spaced hyphen) - 2
  • Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (hyphen) - 93 - most common
  • Richmond/San Rafael Bridge (slash) - 1
  • Richmond San Rafael Bridge (space) - 2
    --Apteva (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5 of the first 10 books on Google book search use unspaced en dash here; and 4 of the next 10; do we have reason to trust your count of 200 books when you haven't admitted that the OCR doesn't pick up the difference between hyphen and en dash? Did you really inspect 200 books? But anyway, it's not a popularity contest. Let's use WP style, per WP:MOSDASH. You're right that newspapers usually use a more compressed style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Doesn't MOS:DASH suggest that spaces may be used when a compound includes a space? That's how I read it, but I'm reading it for the first time. Cnilep (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that is in text, not in a title. In a name the two choices are most common use or the official name. If a name uses spaces, we use spaces, if a name does not use spaces, that is what we use. We do not get to name things, we simply report the names as they exist. Apteva (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, MOS:DASH does not suggest that it can be spaced (the old version before mid 2011 did, but that got changed, which is why we should move this). See the example "a New York–Los Angeles flight". And no, there is no difference in styling between in-text and in-title; why would there be? Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First there are cases in the MOS where a spaced endash still exists. Second, why? Because in text there is an element of creation. I create the words New York-Tokyo trip from July 14-17. There is no element of creation by me when I write Richmond - San Rafael Bridge - I am simply writing down the name as it exists, and I do not refer to a style guide to find out how it is spelled or punctuated, I refer to a dictionary, or in this case, pick the most commonly used name. WP does not make things up. We do not make up names for things - other than in very rare cases, and only then when no suitable name exists. We make up how to describe things, so as not to plagiarize text, and we use the style guide to decide how to use those words in the sentences that we make up, and where to put them on the page. But for advice on which title to use, there is a separate set of instructions, the policy at WP:TITLE. The MOS affects presentation, not content. The choice of a name is content. Apteva (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing content with style. No-one's making anything up. Point out the spaced en dashes on the MOS talk page, and s.o. will fix em. I don't see any. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to fix - dashes are used in several ways. I wish I could also say that there was nothing to fix in the entire MOS, but it unfortunately is not what could be called stable. Apteva (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, MOS is not a problem where it says "The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced." A lot of discussion went into converging on that simple statement. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but does it certainly could have been expressed better, and does not need to be said twice, and what's up with adding article links in the next section? Was that from an edit that someone is still working on? I see that comet Hale-Bopp is still misspelled. It occurs to me that the IAU treats comets the same as planets - the name of planet Earth is Earth, the name of planet Mars is Mars, the name of comet Hale-Bopp is Hale-Bopp. "Earth" and "planet Earth" are interchangeable everywhere, as are comet Hale-Bopp and Hale-Bopp. It is not rules of grammar and spelling or style that dictates the name of comets or airports, it is the naming authority and the public. WP does not make things up or decide what should be used, and only uses what is used. No one hears anyone use planet Mars interchangeably with Mars, but that seems to be the principle, sort of like adding The in front of a name. System is part of the name of "Solar System", meaning only this solar system, but planet is not a part of the name of Earth. Is "The" part of the name, like in The Beatles? Or in The Sovereign State of Texas? Sometimes, sometimes not. Apteva (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was apparently some confusion, I'm saying that no one supports the title as it currently stands. Perhaps whether they like it or not is a separate issue. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-support – I don't understand BDD's relisting comment. Nobody dislikes the current title, we just want to update the styling. Only Apteva objects to the en dash, as he has been doing everywhere, claiming that the MOS is inapplicable in titles and that all proper names should use hyphen (a confusion he originally attributed to the MOS, ironically). When Kwami said "Not my preference, but it is what we decided at WP:ENDASH", he was referring only to the spacing issue. When Cnilep commented, it was only on the spacing issue. This should really be a technical move, like all the bilateral relations articles such as this uncontroversial move, if not for Apteva's disruptive anti-en-dash–anti-MOS campaign, which has received zero support everywhere. Nobody has objected to the en dash since it was moved in 2009 citing the MOS guideline. It's just an update to the latest WP:ENDASH version. None of the other bridge updates, such as this one, have been controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, I am not on an anti-dash campaign. I am suggesting that per the results shown above, a hyphen is more appropriate. What I do suggest, is that endashes should be used where endashes are appropriate and hyphens where hyphens are appropriate. This one came the closest to being a proper name that might have suggested using an endash, but it failed miserably when all the results were counted. We have so far identified four places where hyphens are inappropriately being replaced with endashes, starting with Mexican-American War - wars, bridges, airports, and comets. There may be others. Of those the two that are most obviously hyphens are airports and comets, and of those, there is no contest about comets - there is actually a naming authority that says to use only spaces and hyphens. The main point though, is WP does not get to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate punctuation. What we do is copy what others do, and use the most commonly used punctuation. Apteva (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—bridging is one of the key functions of the en dash. This is a bridge—a bridge between two sides of a river or harbour. A hyphen is inappropriate, and Dicklyon rightly points out that the spacing guideline changed last year (under arbcom's supervision). Tony (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course: This is precisely why en-dashes exist. Apteva is being disruptive in a growing number of places and tendentious on this and similar style bugbears to the point of exasperation, is "asking the other parent" by re-re-re-re-re-raising the same issue in every available venue in hopes of "winning" in one of them (a form of gaming the system, and does not properly understand how WP policies and guidelines interoperate. In particular, Apteva is suggesting a "polices vs. guidelines" imaginary conflict in which policies "trump" guidelines and make up their own rules. In point of fact, policies and guidelines are forms of WP consensus-based policy that basically only differ in how strongly one should feel about the need to invoke WP:IAR and work around them when necessary. And we all know that WP:AT and it's NC guideline sub-pages do not make up their own style rules, but derive them from WP:MOS. This is why article titles and content almost uniformly agree with each other system-wide, article after article × tens of thousands. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is why endashes were created or not is immaterial, because as can be seen, they are not predominantly used in this case. I see no reason to not in every case do the exact same thing. Find out what is the most appropriate title and recommend using that. How do we do that? Find out what the most common use is. If someone finds that exasperating, that is certainly not my fault nor is there anything that can be done about it. What is disrupting though, is thinking that endashes should be used where they are not used. But calling editors names is not going to solve anything. Apteva (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:MOS nor WP:TITLE suggests that we adopt the most common styling from sources for each topic. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but styling to me, involves using all caps or choosing a font, not changing spelling or punctuation. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We face many choices between multiple spellings and multiple punctuations, but the rule we have always used is to choose the most dominant. Apteva (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One "official" name, or two?

[edit]

The lead sentence of this article begins: "Richmond–San Rafael Bridge (officially, the John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge)...."

Further, the informational sidebar lists the bridge's "Official name" as "John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge."

The implication of both of these is that "Richmond-San Rafael Bridge" is no longer an "official" name for this bridge.

Is this correct? Or, in fact, are both of these names "official."

On pages 150 and 154 of this document, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) includes listings for both names, with references to the 1955 and 1981 legislative resolutions that established each one.

In an additional explanation, on page 246 of this document, Caltrans says [emphasis mine]:

"RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE: The bridge on I-580 over San Pablo Bay in the counties of Contra Costa and Marin links the cities of Richmond and San Rafael and is named by location and through legislative action. This bridge is also named the John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge."

This suggests that the 1981 resolution establishing the name "John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge" did not actually "rename" the bridge, but, rather, that it simply added a second "official" name.

Can anyone shed light on this? The best authority would be the adopted text of the 1981 resolution.Johnlumea (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richmond–San Rafael 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, 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) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019-02-08 closure due to falling concrete

[edit]

I see a line has been added about yesterday's closure. I heard traffic reporters claim that the resulting secondary traffic snarls around the Bay Area were record-setting. I'm wondering if anyone's measured that so we can add that claim. -- SpareSimian (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of which proposal?

[edit]

The construction section, coming after the third design proposal, should.make clear which proposal was being built. each of the proposals that did not get built should name the proposal that did get built at the end, to clarify what the final resolution was. otherwise this reads like a pastiche of different articles – SJ + 02:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richmond–San_Rafael_Bridge&oldid=1245958282"