Talk:Clyde Arc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clyde Arc article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of transportation in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Clarification was definitely needed on the nickname, which is a total media invention. Wikipedia should not be furthering the dissemination of misinformation. If mention at all is to be made of a nickname, then an explanation/discussion of where that nickname has come from must be included. Either that, or the reference to the nickname should be removed entirely. The bridge is called the Clyde Arc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.253.132 (talk • contribs)

While I have agreed with you on your comments about "Lazarus Lally" etc. on the Glasgow Patter page, I find it more difficult to agree with you here. It is probably impossible to say for sure if "Squinty Bridge" was a media invention, or the media picked it up from what some people in Glasgow were calling the bridge. As a Glaswegian, I certainly heard people calling it the "Finnieston Bridge" and the "Squinty Bridge" - it was only when it was officially opened that I discovered it was called the "Clyde Arc". I feel the article is fine as it is - no-one knows for sure where the nickname arose from, but I'm pretty sure that most Glaswegians would use Clyde Arc/Squinty Bridge interchangeably, and very few would be as po-faced as our "one kinning park resident" :) Camillus (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you need to reference - where did the name "Squinty Bridge" come from? Who asked "the people" what they were calling it? The only evidence we have of this name are from the journalists who christened it thus at a very early stage - it was a self-fulfilling story for them. What if I and a group of my friends called it the "Glasgow Bow" because of it's shape? Does that merit a mention? No. So who calls it the "Squinty Bridge"? Herald columnists and BBC Scotland editors who think Glaswegians think like simple children. The media are the only quotable source for this nickname, and the article should either reflect this or the reference to the nickname should be removed.

I don't really feel too strongly about this - remove the reference if you like, it is probably impossible to say where the "nickname" arose from. But you may wish to get off your high-horse - as a Glaswegian, I see it as part of the great sense of humour of the people here that we often use slightly deprecating terms for grandiloquient monuments, buildings, to deflate pretensious people etc. I don't think it shows that Glaswegians think like "simple children" at all - unless like the "simple child" who can spot that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Personally, I'd never heard "Clyde Arc" until the day it was opened - it'd always been the "Finnieston Bridge", and yes, sometimes I heard the "Squinty Bridge". Maybe Kinning Park residents could set up a campaign at their next coffee morning. Architects will wax lyrical about dynamic arcs etc. - ordinary Glasegians will continue to say "what, ye mean it's squinty?". Take it out if you like. Camillus (talk)

14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure at what point you became certain that you could tell us what "ordinary Glasgwegians" (who they?) will say about the bridge, but there's absolutely no need to be snotty or abusive.~~~~,

[edit] Width

The infobox claims that the bridge is 140m wide. Shurely shome mishtake. Dricherby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC) The infobox has been corrected to 22mm wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the information about a crack being found 'in the bridge itself' on February 6 is correct. From looking at the supporting link, I believe someone has published information about the second connection fault at a later date. Certainly, there has been no mention of a third failure in any other coverage of the bridge's repair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.198.1 (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the reference claims that there is a crack in the bridge, but as you say, more recent press coverage does not say anything about it. I have deleted the sentence

"On the 6 February a crack was found in the bridge itself. This crack was not seen in inspections just after the original support hanger failure, and is believed to have developed more recently.

^[1]" Martin451 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the cranes aren't doing

Someone added that the 3 cranes are "supporting the bridge". This isn't the case - I've added more detail from a Construction News article (they're not available online, I think) which explains - they're installing "saddle frames" (specially designed saddle-shaped things) which will sit on top of the arc. They'll then connect temporary hangers to this and to the roadway, which will mean that the existing hangers won't be carrying the load any more. Then they can replace the hanger connectors (forks). Normally they wouldn't need to do this, as there's supposed to be enough redundancy in the hangers for one to be removed and replaced, with the others taking the strain. But as they fear all the connector forks are defective they daren't risk adding any more load to them, so they have to do this instead. There is no problem with the arch itself, and the existing hangers are holding the bridge up until the saddles and temporary hangers are in place. All the cranes are doing is installing the saddle frames. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)