Talk:Clyde Arc

Notes

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.~~~~,

The nickname "Squinty Bridge" has certainly caught on regardless of who invented it. I work in the area and if I am trying to direct someone there and I start by saying "do you know the Clyde Arc?" I'm invariably replied with "What's that?". After explaining what it is the usual answer is "Ah, you mean the Squinty Bridge". The name has also caught on in other areas. My factory installed Sat Nav in my car thinks it's real name is "Squinty Bridge" and proudly displays same when I drive over it. In my experience far more Glaswegians know it as the Squinty Bridge than by any other name and it should definately be referred to in this article. --Scuba Mark (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

" Martin451 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

References

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)

Tied-arch?

I've removed the uncited claim that this is a tied-arch. There's no visible evidence or supporting refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/finnieston/

  Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clyde Arc. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ww1.theherald.co.uk/features/69439.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209192424/http://www.inglasgow.com/inglaig/gallery.asp?categoryid=594 to http://www.inglasgow.com/inglaig/gallery.asp?categoryid=594

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: 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) 20:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)