Talk:Ponte Vecchio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Rise-to-Span-Ratio 2 Jump Video 3 if we are not sure when it was built, how 4 Near destruction in WWII 5 Oldest segmental arch bridge? 6 One of only four similar bridges in the world 7 Disinfobox at Ponte Vecchio, and misinformation in general

[edit] Rise-to-Span-Ratio

There is an error here. How can the ratio be 1:5 when the maximum rise is 4.4m and the minimum span 27m? Even in this case the ratio must be 27/4.4 = 6.136! And if we assume a minimum rise of 3.5 and the maximum span of 30m, then the ratio must be even 30/3.5 = 8.571!

So, could someone check this out?

The rise data may be dubious. Joseph Needham's data was: main span 29.9 m, rise 5.6 m, rise to span ratio 0.187. Gisling (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jump Video

Paolo truly did jump from the ponte vecchio. I have a video of it if somebody would like to upload it.

Can you please let us know why you consider this jump encyclopedia-worthy? Is "Paolo" famous for some reason? Is the jump particularly difficult or particularly daring? rm 08:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A 30 foot fall into 10 feet of water is semi-daring if you ask me. Plus the water is very nasty. That and the video is very funny to watch. It is history after all, may not be big history but it happend.

OK, you convinced me not to jump from the Ponte Vecchio. However, as far as I know, 10 meters (32.8 feet) is a standard hight in platform diving competitions and - while not leaving a large safety margin - 3 meters of water depth should do under normal circumstances. I agree that it is story, but I don't think it is history which should be recorded in the article on the Ponte Vecchio. rm 05:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why has this article gone from something useful, to something basically "retarded" today?

Also, whoever put all this stuff on here (the useful stuff, before today...could you please put up your sources? I would like some more information on the subject, as I attempting to compose an essay on Ponte Vecchio for my architecture class...Thanks!

I did a research project in school on the bridge and i wouldent even come close to the water in the Arno....

[edit] if we are not sure when it was built, how

of what it was built? It possibly needs rephrasing. Midgley 16:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Near destruction in WWII

The article says that "the Ponte Vecchio was not destroyed by Germans ... This was allegedly because of an express order by Hitler." I had always heard that Hitler had ordered the destruction of all the bridges over the Arno, and that the general in command of Florence refused to destroy the Ponte Vecchio. (Somewhat akin to von Choltitz not destroying Paris in defiance of orders.) Anyone have any evidence one way or the other? Thanks, Ryan McDaniel 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest segmental arch bridge?

I have revised this claim, as (a) it is not an open-spandrel bridge, as clearly shown by the photos, and (b) it is not Europe's oldest segmental arch bridge (see Alconétar Bridge). -- Kvetner 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One of only four similar bridges in the world

There are only four bridges in the world that have shops on both sides. One of the others is Pulteney Bridge in Bath, UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulteney_Bridge Does anyone know what the other two are? Then I think this information should be added to the main article.

[edit] Disinfobox at Ponte Vecchio, and misinformation in general

Disinfoboxes
A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.

What's the issue? - Denimadept (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes with incorrect or misleading misinformation get deleted quickly: IWIOMMGDQ. Those editors who have content contribute content. There are no vehicles on the Ponte Vecchio. The Ponte Vecchio was built in only one of the three dates given. Your disinfobox is not informative, it is disinformative: os the the shameful disinformatio your shame? Those are the issues. --Wetman (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal: all the information, other than that which I placed there with a question mark, was right out of the article. The bridge was built at least three times, since there were documented cases of the bridge being wiped out twice. If you have a problem with information in the article, I suggest you fix it. Being patently offensive is not helpful. - Denimadept (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The default situation with these boxes of misinformation is no infobox. If an editor without information adds dates of former bridges at a location, then equally misinformed and lazy Wikipedia readers will be misled into thinking Ponnte Vecchio is a rebuilding of a tenth-century bridge. Other hobbyists without information will add it in a "timeline of bridges". This is irresponsible at Wikipedia, no matter how much hobbyists' energies are involved in creating boxed substitutes for nuanced history. Why? Because disinformation snowballs without informed correction. Competence is the issue here. This is a general problem, of which the Ponte Vecchio disinfobox is just one little incident example. --Wetman (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that it has been done so as to add 6 inches of white space. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question, Wetman. The information, other than the bit with the question mark, came out of the article. If you have issues with the information in the article, why don't you fix it? - Denimadept (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, if you have issues with the whitespace, turn off the table of contents which created it. Who do I contact to resolve this? Wetman doesn't seem interested in doing anything but being offensive. I'm going to copy this whole thing to that talk page, 'cause it doesn't really belong here. - Denimadept (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything in the infobox is obtained from information already in the article, what's wrong with it? Most articles have infoboxes for at a glance information, particularly statistics. If the table of contents is the only remaining problem, I'll tag the article to not show it. I'm going to go ahead and change to the previous version with the infobox but hiding the table of contents. Hopefully, that is acceptable to all. --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)