Talk:Ponte Vecchio

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malenacora.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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....

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)

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)

The Germans certainly planted some explosives on the Ponte Vecchio. My Uncle: Capt John Swindley (UK 8th Army) removed some of them and made minor repairs to one end of the bridge after a German mine went off killing his C.O. I presume that the Royal Engineers museum at Chatham will have some reference to this. Grahamswindley (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

From Robert Johnson's "The Figure of Beatrice in Dante's Divine Comedy":

Six hundred fifty years later, during World War II, the Americans were chasing the German army up the Italian "boot." The Germans were blowing up everything of aid to the progression of the American army, including the bridges across the Arno River. But no one wanted to blow up the Ponte Vecchio, because Beatrice had stood on it and Dante had written about her. So the German army made radio contact with the Americans and, in plain language, said they would leave the Ponte Vecchio intact if the Americans would promise not to use it. The promise was held. The bridge was not blown up, and not one American soldier or piece of equipment went across it.

Can't verify, though --Dantesoft (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

I'm finding the whole sentence -- "It has been described as Europe's oldest wholly stone, closed-spandrel segmental arch bridge, but there are far older segmental arch bridges such as Alconétar Bridge." -- to be problematic. Problems:

• Qualifying the "oldest" claim with "closed-spandrel" is needless, since open-spandrel bridges are a more modern innovation. Any of the oldest segmental arch bridges would be closed-spandrel. It would be better to move that piece of information to a description of the bridge, rather than a qualifier on its claim to be "oldest"
• I haven't verified that the Encyclopedia Brittanica really made this claim, but it does indeed appear to be dubious, as there are numerous extant examples of segmental arch bridges that are much much older than the Ponte Vecchio. There are four segmental arch bridges in Padua dating from Roman times.
• Alas, the counterexample given here, the Alconétar Bridge, is a lousy counterexample, as that is only the remains of an ancient bridge. Granted, the "oldest" claim didn't explicitly say "standing" bridge, but I think most readers would take that as implied. The Ponte San Lorenzo or Ponte Molino in Padua would be better counterexamples of much older segmental arch bridges.
• The only thing that might possibly salvage the claim is the qualifier "wholly stone", though it's not clear what that is meant to exclude. The majority of the extant Roman segmental arch bridges are made of masonry.

Unless this claim can be better supported, I think it's better struck. --TomChatt (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

This kind of thing used to be very common. Is there some reason it matters at the moment? - Denimadept (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you state below-

"The only thing really special about this bridge is.... what? Can't be that it's old or it has buildings on it. Neither of those is special. They're quite common on bridges that old"

but the inquirer here thinks existing examples are rare (I think so too) - if they are common, then perhaps you might be able to list at least the 4 he refers to and we can add it to the article? --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm reading Pulteney Bridge, and in the references section is listed an article by Jean Manco, Pulteney Bridge, Architectural History, 38 (1995) JSTOR. I click on the JSTOR link, and I get an article that begins: "Bridges lined with shops have always been rarities..." It seems my feeling that a bridge with shops is unusual is shared by at least one architectural historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Akhilleus got there before me, but I'll still post the following:

I can't speak to which bridges still exist like that, off-hand. I can say, as an example, that Pont Neuf was the first Paris bridge built without such buildings, though it was originally designed to include them. Since I don't have my books here at work, it's kinda tough to refer to them. The impression I get is that it used to be fairly normal to have houses or shops on bridges. Personally, I think that'd be a nightmare of maintenance and high water, but they didn't ask my opinion. The following is based on on-line research here and using Google.

It's a given that older versions of London Bridge (fine, don't take my word for it!) have had buildings on them. This was all a lot more common back 500+ years ago. The reason I haven't bothered to answer the question originally asked is that I have no idea of the specific bridges being asked about. The Ponte Coperto (note the "also known as" on that article) in Pavia, Italy still bears a chapel, which is also not unique. They put chapels on bridges for a couple of reasons, including (1) pray to make the bridge crossing safely, and (2) easy access to the chapel from both ends of the bridge. Good thing I have my ASCE "Bridges 2008" calendar here at work. Anyway, in the intro to this article, the fact that shops on bridges was once common is stated. I don't think I put that there, either. The Rialto Bridge (see second paragraph) apparently used to have shops on it.

Okay, here's another one, right here on Wikipedia: Pulteney Bridge. Needs an infobox. :-) Another article on this bridge at this location makes reference to how common and outdated the practice of putting shops/houses on bridges once was.

Another at this location (in German).

Ask about bridges which had drawbridge sections for security. :-) Really. Sometimes, you didn't want your neighbors to come see you. They might come with blunt instruments and pointy ones too. - Denimadept (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So we've got three: Ponte Vecchio, Pulteney Bridge, Krämerbrücke, and one yet to be determined. I suppose we better find it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's the Ponte di Rialto in Venice. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The OP asked for bridges which currently have such. I already mentioned Rialto Bridge. It no longer has shops, if I understand correctly. Nevermind, I see you're correct! So we're all set. - Denimadept (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you have finally found the four places, maybe now you see how truly unique they are. Rare, lovely, historical structures which just happen to sit on a bridge. - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. They're old bridges which happen to still carry buildings. The key point is the bridge, from where I sit. There may be other such bridges around from which the buildings have been cleared. - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the entire structure, the bridge as the foundation is important, but it is only part of the construction as a whole. - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good. You focus on the whole thing as you wish. I focus on the whole thing as I wish. What's the problem? It's still a bridge at the root. That doesn't lessen it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Denim can research his interesting contention as he can't "speak to which bridges still exist like that, off-hand."? Denim, you seem to be contending that bridges like this used to abound - in that you may be correct to an extent. But currently, you claim there are a plethora of bridges out there that still exist which used to contain shops or buildings or still do. Perhaps if during your research you conclude this is not the case, you might consider that a 'unifying infobox' which (currently) list the key facts of this bridge as being its span and breadth - might not be quite hitting the nail in terms of summarising the article in infobox form. (To make up for the lack of facial expression here - I'm attempting to demonstrate a gentle lesson, I am not impugning your intelligence - but suggesting that wide reading and travel is, well.....valuable.) However, bridges with shops over was never a taught course during my education and everyday brings something to learn anew, so my curiousity is genuinely piqued whether you are correct. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I've already expanded on that, Joopercoopers. See the article on Pont Neuf for what the situation used to be in Paris alone. Read what I've already said. The fact that this bridge has what is now an unusual load does not change the fact that it's a bridge. The point of an infobox is to summarize the bits that it's intended to. It does not diminish what else might exist; it just doesn't cover it. I'll add some of what I posted yesterday (day before?) at User talk:Quiddity:

Ponte Vecchio is a bridge, it should have a nice infobox summary. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't have inserted the infobox in the first place. While there's certainly a lot of history associated with that bridge, there's lots of history associated with many bridges; it's not anything like a unique attribute for a bridge. Ditto the houses or whatever those buildings on the Ponte are. That used to be very common. See the article on Pont Neuf, especially the third paragraph under "Construction". Also, London Bridge, third paragraph under "History" and under London Bridge#"Old" (Medieval) London Bridge. Note the chapel there, which is also not a unique feature. If Rialto Bridge can have an infobox, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and London Bridge and so many others can have an infobox which adds to the article, then Ponte Vecchio can have one regardless of how a few people feel about it. - Denimadept (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Monnow Bridge and Pont Valentré both have buildings (fortifications) on them. Some, like Puente de San Martín (Toledo), only have a fortification at one abutment. For medieval bridges, Eric Delony says that "Chapels, shops, tollhouses, and towers adorned fortified bridges..." (Context for World Heritage Bridges). The article for Pont Neuf says "it was the first stone bridge in Paris not to support houses in addition to a thoroughfare." I would note that the article on Pont Neuf has a bridge infobox, and it is similar to Ponte Vecchio in that it is part of a World Heritage Site.

(BTW, this is why I question superlatives in articles like "this is one of only four in the world." It takes a lot of research to make such a claim. It better be a reliable source.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but note that the claim (which appears in Pulteney Bridge) is carefully qualified: "one of only four bridges in the world with shops across the full span on both sides." Fortifications are not shops, and chapels, tollhouses, and towers generally don't extend across the full span of a bridge, I believe.

As for the infobox, a common argument seems to be "other bridge articles have an infobox, this one should too." I don't get involved in many infobox arguments (one I have participated in is at Trojan War), but it seems like many pro-infobox arguments are of the form "Wikiproject X mandates the use of {{template:infobox-x}}, so this article should use it." But, of course, whatever a Wikiproject usually does should be subordinate to consensus at individual articles. If there is a consensus at an article that an infobox shouldn't be used, then an infobox shouldn't be used. Of course, that consensus is valid for that article only; if we decide that the Ponte Vecchio article doesn't need an infobox, that hardly gives me ammunition to go to Burnside Bridge and remove the infobox there. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I have introduced a new less-aggressive display of the Disinfobox. A mouseclick on the discreet bar displays the Disinfobox, unchanged. Editors who are concerned with the intrusive proliferation of Disinfoboxes may want to note the simple html that encloses the Disinfobox html. All very simple. A perfect solution, rather than trying to reason with the Box People.--Wetman (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. I don't agree, but I see. Interesting idea, I think. It seems like more effort and looks more intrusive than the original idea, in my opinion. By the way, a bridge can have multiple build dates, because an article is not necessarily specifically about the bridge, but could also be about crossings at the site. Just FYI. - Denimadept (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider the {{Infobox bridge}} appropriate for this article. For readers who are comparing bridges, it provides the basic data needed (age, use, span length, type). It provides a uniform manner to place a picture at the top of the article (which is very beneficial for a bridge article). This is what is used in all bridge articles. Some wikiprojects have a preferred style to not use an infobox; for bridges, the preferred style is to include an infobox. Any concern over conflicting information can be discussed here to answer concerns about "disinformation". - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for the infobox. Now I know that the Ponte Vecchio is a closed-spandrel segmental stone arch bridge, and I didn't even have to read the article. I was trying to compare this bridge to the Milvian Bridge, but sadly that article has no infobox, and the text has nothing about the bridge design, just some nonsense about history... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely, the Ponte Vecchio is so much more then just a bridge that the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges should not apply. There are only 3 or 4 structures similar to this in the world. FYI, you could have found the information about "closed-spandrel segmental stone arch bridge" by reading the first two sentences of the article. - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that I didn't have to read a single word of the text, I didn't even make it through the first sentence of the lead.

By the way, perhaps I should have been more explicit: I was being sarcastic, or at least trying to be! Maybe I should have used a smiley face or something. Honestly, I think infoboxes are bad ideas in almost every article. I would be happy if this article didn't have one; I certainly agree that the Ponte Vecchio is much more than a bridge, and I find the idea that one might want to compare it to the Burnside Bridge or other bridges somewhat absurd. (BTW, the Burnside Bridge is a double-leaf "Strauss style" bascule, if anyone cares.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It occurred to me this morning that it might be best to let Wetman have his way, to see how many others will react the way I did. His basic "take" on infoboxes, and as he calls them "bulleted lists", is wrong-headed in my opinion. Sometimes the Cliff's Notes are the correct answer for someone who is just looking for basic information and does not need a research article. Not everyone has his, or your, requirements. - Denimadept (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I being thick or is this the Cliff's notes? I see summary, analysis, personae dramatis etc. etc. what I don't see is a tabulated infobox with erroneously reductive information. I'm confused by your inference here denim. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What's this about "Carries currently only pedestrians"? I can't find that in the article. Have cyclists been banned? And I'd be surprised if there isn't still a right of way for horses, donkeys, and so forth. Xn4 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just made some improvements (the 'pedestrian' reference being one of them) - you need to see denim's preferred version for a full appreciation. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Structurae says it's a road bridge. Why couldn't you fix the thing rather than erasing it? The idea of this project is to provide correct data, not to simply erase things. - Denimadept (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's what's called 'nesting', it's not 'erasing'. The infobox can still be brought up, for those who want it. It strikes me as a rather neat solution. Xn4 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you're missing how he erased the text at one of the infobox entries. That's called "erasing" or "deleting" or "removing", and it's what I was talking about. - Denimadept (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok denim - I've got no problem with re-inserting 'road bridge' there, but pedestrian was self-evidently wrong from inspection of the photos. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I must've missed the image with something other than pedestrians in it. Oh well. - Denimadept (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as an odd notion that you can rely on a photograph to tell you what the usage of a bridge is and/or what rights of way there are on it. There could be a way for elephants, regularly used by elephants, but on the basis of 'What does this picture show?' you'd say there wasn't... unless the picture showed an elephant. Xn4 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo isn't a valid source for this information, but my Florence Blue Guide (by Alta Macadam, 5th ed., published 1991) on p. 108 says that the bridge is only open to pedestrians. It doesn't mention whether the pedestrians are only humans, or whether pachyderms and other quadripeds use the bridge. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember where I got the info, and since I didn't cite it, we'll never know. Maybe that was the place I had the (?) marker. - Denimadept (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked. I inserted the infobox at [1] and had a "?" there. - Denimadept (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a guide book dating from 1991 was a bit thin as evidence of current usage. Since then, Europe has seen the apotheosis of the cyclist, an aspect of what the British government likes to call its sustainable transport strategy, something to do with saving the planet, spurred on by the new notion that climate change is going to finish us all off. And if there are no biodiesel-powered rickshaws crossing the Arno here yet, give it time. Xn4 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flooding and some questions

Does anyone know if the bridge was affected in any way by the 1966 Flood of the River Arno in Florence? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The floodwaters submerged at least part of the bridge; I've seen pictures of ruined shops filled with mud. Don't have a source handy, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons for introducing the segmental arches, of course, was that they were better at coping with heavy flooding. I can't think that simply being partly under water would do too much harm to this bridge. The greatest harm in 1966 was to things not designed to cope with floods. Xn4 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well here's some evidence of the damage [2]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The damage seems to be mostly to the floors and walls which jut out from the bridge. That claim "The Ponte Vecchio was almost completely destroyed during the 1966 flood catastrophe" strikes me as over the top. In the pictures, the bridge itself looks sound under the damaged superstructure. Xn4 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not so sure now. Our traditional notions of superstructure and foundation are a little challenged by structures such as these - is the 'bridge' just the arches, cutwaters and spandrel, with the rest being a superstructure upon these 'foundations' or is the thing as a whole 'the bridge'. It's probably the later, in which case removal of those outer loadbearing walls in the superstructure looks quite perilous - if we had a stacked superstructure failure there it might well have collapsed the bridge below in any event. I think its perhaps not such a wild claim. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the Ponte Vecchio is the whole thing. But I can imagine a very much greater degree of 'complete destruction' - as in what was done to the Stari Most at Mostar. Xn4 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is in the 'almost' complete destruction - bridge collapses are always rather dramatic and the tipping point from 'almost' to 'complete' is a narrow one. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there was a structural survey after the 1966 flood. That should fathom whether there was a possibility of collapse. Xn4 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be a great source....! --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

apropos that - this (see paper presented by Chiarugi, Andrea) looks promising. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also:-

1. What is the TCI, Firenze eo. loc.. reference - it's not in the bibliography so hard to tell.
2. Banister Fletcher is in the bibliography, but doesn't seem to have been cited - should he be in 'further reading'.
3. Is there any way we can get the gallery pictures bigger?
4. There's a section above about the 'allegedly because of an express order by Hitler' claim. Allegedly is always worrying - alleged by whom? Can we get a source? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On #3, if you move the pictures outside the gallery tags, they display at their native size. I don't know if you can make them larger within the gallery. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they might be better in a piped table so we can control the sizes? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write the table code, I won't object. I'm not a big fan of the table syntax, though, and I'm not going to do it myself. We should consider whether a polished version of this article might have enough text that the pictures can be scattered throughout the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you're right - we've got commons for galleries really - I'll move it over here for now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

moved from mainspace for now - see above - the idea is we'll gradually reintroduce some of these to illustrate prose, currently some of these are lovely snapshots, but of little encyclopaedic value.--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
Ponte Vecchio and the River Arno in June, 1983 Padlocks on the railing of the statue of Cellini Sunset view from the Ponte Vecchio's Vasari Corridor Panorama of the Ponte Vecchio and the Arno during sunset Ponte Vecchio at night View from the Uffizi

Coords and infobox image

I've removed the image and coords from the infobox and I'd like to discuss the 'completion date' issue too.

1. The coords are typically located at the top right hand side of WP articles. That WP:Bridges chooses to have them in their infobox is their business, but it's not necessary to repeat the information when it already exists just a few pixels above.
2. The image isn't necessary for similar reasons - we expand the 'facts at a glance' box for facts, not images that already exist in the article.
3. Completion date - we really need to loose this - just when are we saying construction finished? 1345 when the arches were complete? 1565 when the corridor was constructed - the various 17th century dates for the construction of the shops? The 1966 repairs to the superstructure? The construction history of this bridge is too complicated to reduce to a single date. (but I've left it in for now for discussion) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Completion date usually refers to the when the bridge in question became passable for crossing the river. --Polaron | Talk 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is that caviat given in the infobox? Shouldn't it refer to how the date is arrived at then - currently its rather misleading no? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, then.

1. The coords thing is debatable; I didn't design the infobox, I just fill it in as best I can. If you have issues with that, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate Template talk:Infobox Bridge page. Perhaps you can get it eliminated. Still, not all pages have the coords appear at the top right. Older pages sometimes have it at the bottom of the page where the template is included. I suppose that's why it was added to the infobox in the first place. The situation has changed a bit since then. If you wish, you might take that up with the Template:Infobox nrhp people too, since their template always puts the coords at the top right even if someone else is already doing it. And we can't remove their coords because they might be using them for a purpose inside their infobox, to place a dot where the structure is located, see the version of the template with the "locator map". See Bulkeley Bridge for an example. Oh, and if you want to know my issue with infoboxes, just see the hash made by the two boxes on that page. I'd like to see a way to coherently combine multiple infoboxes in the situation where there's more than one on a page. I want it to happen automatically, too.
2. The facts-at-a-glance name is fine by me. The collapsed version isn't going to stand, regardless of Wetman, so I'm arranging to make it easy to revert. Too many people like infoboxes to do this to them.
3. The 1345 date is in the references. The rebuilds can be included as well if you wish. I generally include complete rebuilds-from-scratch aka "replacement" and sometimes major refurbishments like I assume that 1966 work probably was. One thing which annoyed me is that Wetman removed such dates, claiming that only the current bridge is important. It was BS then, and it's BS now, as we're not usually just speaking of the current bridge, but YOU try arguing with him.

In case it's unclear, I've been bending over backwards to try to accommodate Wetman and people who agree with him. I don't like his way of doing things, and I don't appreciate his high-handed disregard for other people's efforts. I'm not lily white on this myself, granted, since I disregard his disregard for other people's efforts by disregarding his efforts. But I'm giving y'all a chance. Y'all may not appreciate that. - Denimadept (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about Wetman Denim, he just doesn't suffer fools gladly - I'm much more accommodating. The trouble with the completion date issue is who's to know what criteria you've applied? The reader, given this information and a glance at the photos would reasonably assume the whole shooting match was constructed at that date, so its misleading. Really we can't give structures like this a completion date, only a destruction date - are you complete as a human being because you have all your limbs? Historic structures like this evolve and change and get added to and are really in a constant state of flux - so we can't really offer specific dates, they're problematic. Regarding the coords, the fact that several WProjects both do something daft isn't really an argument for continuing that - remember, anyone can set up a wikiproject, you don't need permission and you can make what rules you like, but to carry them through to the general encylopedia does require the consensus of the community at large. So can we agree its daft and remove them here? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's a "started" date as well. We have to use the data from our references. If we've got conflicting references, well, that's what we've got brains for. Include one in the infobox and discuss the discrepancy in the article. Then there's articles like Tay Rail Bridge. Note the way I had to split the dates for that bridge up, given the situation. The coords thing is less clear.

What I'd like to see is a discussion about the collapsed infoboxes in an appropriate place such as the general "infobox" talk page, the coords discussed in a more general place perhaps, but that one place might work as well.

As I said above, not all pages were made at the same time, so the templates used differ. There are some with a coord template which can only put the coord where the template is included, at the bottom of the page. That's clearly out of date and needs to be changed, at the very least, to the version of the same template which puts the data at the top right. We can include the data in the infoboxes, at the bottom of the page, at the top right, at the top left, in the middle of the page in a way that it won't scroll, we can e-mail it to everyone in the world, we can rename the project "COORD WORLD" and put random locations on pages without coords of their own (This is the location of all shirts!), or any other way we can get agreement.

Personally, I think that it may be a good idea to not let infoboxes put coords outside themselves. Define that infoboxes can only include data in themselves and must not affect anything else, say. We could then say that using {{coord|...|display=title}} in an infobox is an offense, that we'll sic User:Wetman on everyone who does it, and if they argue with him that he'll hang on them like an English bulldog until they give up. Most people would, after all.

We have multiple issues going on here at the same time. I think we'll reach easy consensus on the "coords in infoboxes" issue. Still, to get people to comply will require a discussion somewhere else, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates as well as the infobox discussion page I mentioned before. - Denimadept (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikiprojects

The bridge is located in Italy and within the historic center of Florence, a World Heritage Site. I added their templates to the talk page. Are there other wikiprojects which might have interest in tha article? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a normal bridge?

I'm trying to understand how this is not a normal bridge. Many bridges used to have houses and such on them, so that can't be it. What is it, then? - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask, what do you mean by 'normal'? Xn4 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If there was one thing to me that took this bridge out of the "normal" (as much as I despise that term), it would be the historical signifigance of this bridge. When I thought about furthering the discussion on the bridge infobox, I started to realize that perhaps history (or historic landmark) buffs might have a greater interest in this bridge than bridge buffs. That's why I added other talk headers. (Of course, I raised a very raucous--but completely silent--cheer when I saw that each of these other wikiproject pages supports the use of infoboxes on pages they work on. Oh, no! That might lead to a heated discussion on which project's infobox is more appropriate to supply information at-a-glance.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that someone said the bridge isn't a normal bridge. Darned if I know what they meant. If it's the associated history or the age, there are many such bridges, so I'm looking for what's about this bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Images should almost always be the default thumbnail size (180px) to allow graceful display at all screen resolutions, and so that personal image-size preferences work, and for the benefit of those with slow connections (most of the world). (See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size)

Infoboxes should not be "hidden" with custom divs - per overwhelming consensus at MOS:Infobox and WP:VPR (including mostly admins in that last thread (not that their adminship strictly matters, but, you know..)). Hiding infoboxes is bad for accessibility, it breaks printing, it confuses newcomers, it's inconsistent with the rest of the site, etc etc.

An infobox, whilst not required, is by consensus/tradition/consistent-practice a highly-recommended inclusion. IF the contributors here are not content with the fields given in Template:Infobox Bridge or Template:Infobox building, they should make a custom infobox at Ponte Vecchio/Infobox, which can be transcluded in the usual way. [But, redirect/confine discussion to this talkpage, in order to not fragment the discussion]. This is all normal practice.

Infoboxes are useful for a huge variety of reasons, including comparison between related articles for readers, and data-harvesting by robots/scripts. If a custom infobox is required, please keep it as close to the standard one (in design and field-title/inclusion) as possible.

I've made a few changes to cleanup per the above, and I've cleared-out the seemingly-incomplete infobox fields. Please update/add when appropriate references are found, and details confirmed.

Please improve, don't just remove! Take it slow, there is no deadline, civility keeps volunteers volunteering. And similar sentiments of camaraderie and cooperation. Keep in mind that the article will grow immensely on its way to Featured article status. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of infoboxes. But Infobox bridge doesn't work here. Nor does Infobox building. The contributors here have reached a consensus about how this article should be organised. Consensus can change, but the MOS is only a guideline, not an iron law, and consensus now, for this article, is clear. I'd suggest that it may be a good approach to participate in changing that consensus, here on the talk, before you revert what is a promising experiment. I see no edit to Ponte Vecchio or the talk in your last 500 contribs, so perhaps you'll want to participate here a bit more before you speak of camaraderie. I'll be reverting the removal of the show/hide, but will let the rest of your changes stand. Let's have a discussion and see whether consensus among those who work this article (which except in passing does not include me) can be changed. Since you note who's an admin and who isn't (while saying "not that it matters") I'll note I'm... well you could look it up yourself, I suppose. Not that it matters. Please improve, don't remove. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure infobox bridge doesn't work? This is a bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. See above. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've been asking this question for days. That answer won't do. It's a bridge. It has some buildings on it. That's not unusual. - Denimadept (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, it seems unusual to me. Of course, I'm not browsing bridge infoboxes to find closed-spanderel bridges or nothin', so maybe I have no idea what a "normal bridge" is. But the Ponte Vecchio is very different from the bridges I use in my normal travels... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a notion of common sense. It is a bridge. Its name is ponte vecchio. It may be at this late date a bridge in the way a monotreme is a mammal, and I haven't contributed directly to the article, but I have read it and this talk page multiple times recently. Bridge. Sswonk (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge. Sswonk" | Not just a bridge. Lar (PS, try again... perhaps you could do a custom infobox at Ponte Vecchio/Infobox, as Quiddity suggests, and we could all review it. Then we could show/hide that instead of the current unsuitable standard one size fits all box.) ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing really special about this bridge is.... what? Can't be that it's old or it has buildings on it. Neither of those is special. They're quite common on bridges that old. - Denimadept (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! you can answer this thread then? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested elsewhere that temporarily removing the infobox, until a consensus has developed for a custom solution, might be diplomatic. I'd strongly recommend doing that, instead of using the clearly-disagreed-with hiding solution. Not having an infobox at all, is vastly preferable to a "broken" infobox.

There is also a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Proposal: Add a guideline against hiding of infoboxes, wherein I've listed a number of the reasons hidden-infoboxes should never be used (culled from the various discussions).

[tangentially: I use the adminnamehighlight script so I know exactly who is and isn't ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that show/hide is a "clearly disagreed with" solution but I'd be OK with seeing the infobox gone completely, as would a lot of other folk, I suspect. The show/hide is a compromise offered by those who think it doesn't belong but wanted to acknowledge the minority view that there is need for one. Tangentially, why do you care who is an admin and who isn't? That is entirely the wrong focus. Perhaps you should focus on who has how much article writing experience? If you really want to do point counting, count FAs GAs and DYKs, instead of adminships. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's "broken". What's wrong with it and what would need to be custom? In my world, this box fits well. The info in it is right out of the article, as is most of the stuff which has been removed from it. I expect that means we should remove the broken information in the article too. I'll get to that later today. - Denimadept (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Denimadept, the box may fit well in your world, but in mine, it's an eyesore (that applies to the hidden facts-at-a-glance version, too). As far as I'm concerned, what's important about the Ponte Vecchio is how it fits into the history and culture of Florence, and that's not the kind of thing that fits into an infobox; it must be covered in prose. The infobox highlights relatively trivial facts, and presents them in a way that suggests they're the most important information about the bridge. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a proper answer. Thank you. To me, it's a bridge, but your answer is what I was looking for. - Denimadept (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, is that a consensus that the currently-hidden-infobox can be removed altogether? Lar, Akhilleus, and I, seem to agree that it would be acceptable to remove it...

After which, if wanted, you/we can work on an acceptable-to-all custom infobox in a new thread (and in a sandbox instead of live). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: If anyone wants to permanently hide all infoboxes, just add this line to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css

.infobox {display:none}

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really - I assume anon readers get the default monobook so will have the infoboxes shown as default?

Lets talk pragmatically here for a moment about consensus. Genuine consensus concerning the use of infoboxen is a rare thing, because debates as in-depth as this are too infrequent. The default operation is a wikiproject assembles a task force, says they're desirable on their subject of interest and then spams them over categories in the interests of reader comfort. If principle authors object, the projects have enormous amounts of precedent to draw upon, and usually ready 'pro' voters to skew the !vote, a forum for an easy WP:CANVAS, or a MOS page populated by obvious vested interests in the subject. But that isn't a consensus.

Don't get me wrong, I think infoboxes have their place in biology, geography, chemical elements and all those subjects where the important aspects of an article can genuinely be distilled into a few choice facts, and particularly where mainstream academic taxonomies have already been established. But in a lot of the arts, the most significant aspects of the article usually aren't the ones chosen as fields in the box. Architecture vs. construction vs. history has perennial tensions that for me, actually are the lifeblood of the subject, it is in these divergences from the standard that make them both notable and worthy of study. To list the dimensions of the Taj Mahal or its UNESCO World Heritage inscription number on the Taj Mahal as the key facts, because those are the only facts it shares with other buildings, can never effective achieve the promised objective of distilling the most important facts. Unfortunately, the number of people on WP that can actually tell you 'why' is low in comparison to the legion of 'boxophiles' who insist on a standard approach - I note, at best they are usually BSc's rather than BA's, in my experience, for whom a breakdown of the Aristotolean 'classification' impulse rather jars. So how might common sense prevail? How might the minority editor of prose arts and architecture articles be persuaded to continue contributions despite the overwhelming hordes of apparent ludites who insist that standardised trivialities are the most prominent and important thing an article should say?

Wetman's proposal was modest in its aims towards this - give such page editors a reasonable compromise with those who desire this information to be displayed so prominently. I'd of course prefer an assumption of primacy of principle editors over wikiprojects, but then turkeys are always understandable twitchy in the ballot box at Christmas time. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this article is about to set a precedent, which it might, and I am not being flippant here, and have not contributed any edit to the article here, and will not although it has been suggested try to craft a compromise infobox here, if this collapsible box is to become a model for any future placement of such things, can I propose that the title of it at least be something other than "Facts at-a-Glance"? Not to disparage the developers, but it reminds me of "Filet-O-Fish". I am being totally serious. The comment above this one reminded me a little of Patrick Henry, but the current box title is an oxymoron as the facts are hidden until one clicks the title. I nominate "Summary of Facts" as a possible replacement.

Also, I would like to add bridges and roads to the list of article subjects where infoboxes have their place. The discussion at MOS has luckily not digressed into a "Box People" (or "boxophiles") vs. "Disinfoboxers" as this one threatens to do once again. I can only conclude that having no infobox in this situation might even be a much better ending than having the style of the one here at Ponte Vecchio if it means that articles in the other bridge articles with well established boxes will not begin to suffer the same fate, with the same unnecessary, intransigent and unconstructive sniping being involved among editors thereafter. Sswonk (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict with sswonk) I really wasn't asking for a meta-digression on consensus, or on the generalized-efficacy of infoboxes! I just want to get this piece of broken code removed from the live article. I'd be bold and do it myself, but I don't want to accidentally antagonize anyone.

Zero infobox, is better than a Broken infobox (from a web accessibility perspective). Could we please remove it? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we reform box policy? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in this thread/page we can't! Try WP:Village pump (policy) or (proposals) for that.

Can we remove the bad code from this article now, please? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Wetman but for the record, policy doesn't have to be made at WP:VP, it can be made by practice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We could remove the bad code if we could agree on what the bad code is, Quiddity. - Denimadept (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The hiding code! That's the only reason I'm here. [having seen the note at MoS:Infoboxes on August 21]

(I'd be happy to offer input if it's wanted, on the meta-existence of infoboxes. But. Not until that hiding div is gone. That's all that I'm impassioned about. The suggestion of removing the infobox at the same time - either permanently - or until an agreed-upon-custom-replacement is developed - is simply in order to get everyone to agree to - remove the hiding code. Heck, I'll do it, so we can get back to a sane discussion!) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you deleted a bit more than that. Good thing I have the whole article stored locally. - Denimadept (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not until that hiding div is gone." That sounds rather like an ultimatum to me, Quiddity. Not very collegial. Perhaps your input isn't required then, if it comes at the cost of an ultimatum? I suspect the page regulars can decide what needs doing just fine. ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

!Nooo! That was a plea, not an ultimatum. I was trying (and will desist henceforth) to help break the deadlock that seems to be over a piece of bad experimental code. Look way from the hiding div! This is not the hiding div you are looking for. [I'm very curious to see what the devs think of it]

I'll just point you to my last reply to Joopercoopers at my talkpage, and see myself out. Sorry to have put you on the defensive. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

revert

I've revert quiddity, disliking the 'centralised authority' (given by whom?) approach and finding the 'swoop in, set out the toys, and leave' approach (see above) rather patronising - we know how to establish such things without such help - it's the why that's at issue. thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempted assistance ("toys") removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Special case...

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Revised_proposal_against_hiding_of_infoboxes... the upshot is that a blanket prohibition against show/hide divs on infoboxes is on hold, at least for a while, to allow some experimentation here. My read is one should not take that as blanket permission to go do the show/hide thing on other infoboxes, but instead those interested should work here, on this article, to see what possible tunings/tweakings could be done. A ticket has been or should be raised with the devs to sort the printing problem, right? ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to think this kind of thing was what the Sandbox was for, but I learned otherwise. - Denimadept (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Most (almost all?) things that's very true, sandbox or somewhere in your userspace. This is one where I think it's not. ++Lar: t/c

(ec)I'm not a big fan of the hidden infobox. If we're going to try it out, though, we should fix the layout problem that it causes: for me, the "facts-at-a-glance" thingy isn't as wide as the picture just below it, and it's causing the text to flow in a remarkably ugly way. This could be fixed either by moving the picture or modifying the width of the hidden infobox; it seems like we want a picture up there, and I'm not sure how to modify the width--I guess it's that "width:22em" bit in the infobox code, but an em seems to be different in the browsers I have available to me right now (Firefox 3 and Safari 3). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked in IE6 and IE7, and in FF2 and FF3, and at 22em, it's a bit narrower than the pic. At 23em (E just changed it after she saw what you said about it) it looks just about exactly right. All these browsers are on Wintel machines, dunno about others. The coords are messed up in IE though... they are right on top of the article's head line... (but that's a generic thing, Ada Covered Bridge, a thoroughly ordinary covered bridge that is well suited to having an info box, has the coords in exactly the same wrong place) ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm on a Mac, and the 23em version looks fine in Safari 3, but is still causing text flow problems on FF3 (it's better than before, though). Is it possible to use pixels rather than ems? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The coords are in the right place, but don't look attractive to my eye at all (not really interested in fighting about/discussing that right now though). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked using pixels instead of em as this becomes a problem at various zoom levels. Added code to more properly center table infobox inside infobox collapsible box when expanded. Looks OK to me, using FF3/Mac OS X 10.5. Try varying zooms, box shown or hidden to test on IE. Sswonk (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks great to me, thanks Sswonk. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Someone should confirm this on Wintel especially IE6 at various zooms. Sswonk (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work guys! I tried it on wintel IE6 and it looked good at all of the text size settings (if that's what you meant by zooms) and at various screen widths. (if that's what you meant by zooms). When you get down around 250 px of screen width or narrower, the collapsable section and the image misalign from each other, but that's a pathological case, you see a lot of weirdness at that narrow of a screen. Note that this solution depends on using fixed width images to align with. I think somewhere else there's a guideline that says that thumbs shouldn't specify fixed width but should be sizeable by the user via their preferences. So maybe some really clever template coder maybe ought to see if something like the {{imagestack}} thing could be done, that attaches the collapsable infobox to the first image, but sizes based on user pref rather than a fixed size. Not sure how to do that. Or if it's needed, but wanted to mention it. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of kludgy tweaks to center the title of the box and changed the title to "Quick Reference". These tweaks and the others I made should no doubt be built in to a future class, and will need to be flexible to accommodate varying widths among infoboxes. I will take a look at the class/template and play around with test versions, but I don't want to step on the toes of those developing any other solution so will leave things up to current developers. Sswonk (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference, regarding the printing issue, please see MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#MediaWiki:Print.css which in turn references bugzilla:15613, recently opened, and closed. Perhaps fixing the .css is doable? .css is not one of my strong areas. (Maybe testing your own version of print.css might reveal things??) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please get rid of that horrid box at the top; it's unsightly and unnecessary, even worse than the usual infoboxes, most of which are unsightly and unnecessary. Also see WP:MOS#Scrolling lists, which deals with hiddent text in articles. I hope we don't see something like this take hold in other articles; it won't print or mirror well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not again! - Denimadept (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The printing issue is resolvable, the necessary .css changes just haven't been made yet. I dunno about the mirror issue, why wouldn't it mirror well? This box is a compromise between those who feel this article should be infobox free and those who feel it absolutely must have one. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoing the compromise?

This series of edits [3] undid a long standing compromise/experiment in which the article had a non standard infobox and other features, without any prior discussion of the changes. Pigsonthewing was then reverted [4] (without any discussion or even an edit summary, an unfortunate choice of action) and reverted back [5]. I've returned to the status quo ante and I suggest that rather than any further edit warring, that a discussion be initiated here about whether the article should remain non standard or should return to a more conventional style. Pigsonthewing and others should review the long discussion just above this section to understand why things are as they are, and discuss their proposals before any further changes are carried out. obdisclose: Josette is my wife and made me aware. Further I was a participant in the previous discussions. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You have both reverted a number of changes in one, including some not relevant to the supposed "compromise". The article is a mess, with a non-standard interface and minuscule text, neither of which will not help our users,; a gallery, and forced image sizing, both contrary to the MoS. There was no "edit warring". I had already read the earlier - over a year old - discussion, and it does not justify the current poor state of the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This started with you making a bunch of changes that had no reference to the prior discussion or compromise, but that undid it, it's natural to resist that, given no discussion. Reverting them without a summary or coming here first was wrong, but we're beyond that now, move on. I'll gladly restore those changes that in my view are not part of the compromise, or restore the whole set, after discussion and consensus about those that are. It may be a good idea to ping some of the (as you say, year old) participants to get a wider view first. ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all the participants of that discussion, both those who were pro, and those who were con. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Perhaps you didn't read my edit sumamries? As for "I'll gladly restore those changes that in my view are not part of the compromise, or restore the whole set, after discussion and consensus about those that are"; we're not beholden to you to decide which changes are or are not allowable. Perhaps you could indicate where in the earlier discussion it was decided that two "References" headers, such as you have just reintroduced, are required? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No one person owns any article, but those who discussed matters and reached consensus previously certainly are stakeholders. My offer was to go through your edits and restore those that aren't directly related to the compromise reached a year ago so that we could focus on those that are. I reviewed the edit summaries and I didn't see any specific references to prior discussion in any of them so I'm not sure what you meant by "Perhaps you didn't read my edit sumamries?"(sic) . It's not a matter of ownership, it's a matter of trying to narrow the scope of the discussion down to make it easier to discuss. I hope that helps clarify matters. I'm not finding your tone helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, your offer was to "restore those changes that in [your] view are not part of the compromise" at some point in the future (but clearly not now). I asked you about the references headers, but you have ignored that. My tone is appropriate, in such circumstances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not what I meant. I agree about the double ref, it's unfortunate it got caught out, and if the article returns to status quo ante without edit warring, I'll make that change again, and others. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do y'all really want to reopen this particular can of worms? The "compromise" was horseshit, but I got sick of fighting idiots. - Denimadept (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to undo matters then, and return the article to a standard form. Discussion will clarify that. I pinged everyone, pro and con, so as to foster it. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I did; and what you mass-reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. WP:BRD means bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert revert discuss. The article should be in the original state while discussion goes on. I'm not opposed to the final outcome being the compromise being abandoned, if that is the consensus outcome. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BRD does not mean (much less permit) "mass revert all of an editor's changes, if you don't like some of them". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, IF the edit warring stops, I'll sort out which changes are, in my view, not related to the compromise, and reapply them, and if I got it wrong, discuss further, so that you don't have to spend your energy doing it. But not before the edit warring stops. I don't find your tone helpful. Instead of sparring about the exact way we got here and casting aspersions, spend your energy discussing why the changes you favor ought to be made. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We did that already. Go back and review the previous discussion if you need to. Why go through it again? I'd rather blank the page and start over. - Denimadept (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to restore the "non compromise" changes, and I did fix the double ref. I also tried moving the coord call out into the infobox but the issue it has is that when the box is hidden so are the coords, I think that is why they were outside the box. Maybe there's a switch that controls that? Not sure. So I changed that back but if anyone knows how to get it to show even when collapsed please move it back in. The rest of the changes are all part of the "compromise" I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason why the infobox should not be hidden. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an obvious example of when a compromise solution turns out to be worse than either of the proposed versions. 189.105.37.115 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but stupid people who refuse to see the obvious can't abide a standard infobox. Personally, I figure that if they can't handle it, they're welcome to fuck off. I'm sick of moderating my position on this. - Denimadept (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec, of course) Re: Andy's statement that forced image sizing is "contrary to the MoS", I am not able to find that guideline, and interpret parts of MOS:IMAGES to allow it. Please elaborate. As for the collapsed v. standard infobox, I am with Denimadept 100% in that revisiting the arguments is very undesirable. I think it should be an infobox, but so many vehemently opposed that last year that I ended up at least trying to make the compromise navbox variant workable on various platforms. It is a compromise in name, Lar did what he could to end drama last year, but it is still out of the ordinary and I haven't seen the experimental style catch on anywhere else. Sswonk (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly important point, Sswonk. If an exception to the normal practice is a good idea, why is this apparently the ONLY article that has it? Does anyone else have an example where something similar was done? I'd rather see a solution arrived at which satisfies those who say "this isn't JUST a bridge" if possible, (my suggestion is a custom/handcrafted infobox that incorporates the bridge aspects, the building aspects, and the historical landmark aspects) but which doesn't result in this article being a singleton infobox wise. A year went by. Perhaps everyone just got busy, or forgot about trying this elsewhere or trying to resolve the remaining issues and getting the MoS to accept this variant? But experiments should either be resolved to a conclusion, discontinued, put into practice, or whatever, not just left hanging. Either end the experiment or take the steps to do something further. (or explain why this really ought to be the only one!) I expect this will get me some grief later, Jo and I are on opposite sides of the Infobox Question, generally. But sacrifices must be made for the good of the wiki. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with no infobox at all. If that makes me a stupid person who refuses to see the obvious, so be it. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It does. I could re-iterate all the argument from last year, but I reach the same conclusion I did last year: it's not worth it. The stupid people will remain stupid, insisting that a bridge is not a bridge, and I have better ways to use my time. - Denimadept (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling people stupid isn't helpful, let's not do that. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I was one of the folks initially arguing (at least weakly) in favor of having some sort of infobox. Maybe a custom one that has aspects of bridge and building both, or something. But to just upset the compromise without discussion seems wrong. Now we're discussing which is good. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very willing to compromise on this. It's a bridge, it should contain {{infobox bridge}} as such, end-of-discussion. Since I can't have that, I've moved on to other articles. This one is hopeless on this topic, do whatever you want. Put a big orange block before and after every sentence 'cause this bridge is special. - Denimadept (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a special bridge. But what I object to is the notion that "It's a bridge, it should contain {{infobox bridge}}". More broadly, I object to the idea that "it's an X, it should contain {{infobox X}}". Why are infoboxes mandatory for anything? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they're helpful and nice. I won't say everything should have an infobox, but many things should. Summary, Cliffs Notes, whatever you want to call it, it's helpful for when you're looking for key information and aren't interested in reading 30K of otherwise irrelevant (to a particular reader) crap. Also, not everything works in prose but can work in a tabular form like an infobox. - Denimadept (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, why was User:Wetman not invited? Intentional? - Denimadept (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unintentional, and glad Wetman found it. My methodology was to scan the discussion and invite everyone I saw, I had no intention of leaving anyone out, but I may have missed others, if you or anyone else thinks I missed anyone, please let them know. ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. I see benefit in bringing this article into a consistent state with the other articles. 1) I agree that the infobox is both expected & useful to some readers, and that the "hide/show" javascript is not a good compromise. 2) I disagree with removing the whole "Gallery" section - some of the less informative photos should be pruned, but leaving the majority will help viewers who aren't familiar with the "see commons for other images" box in the bottom-right. 3) The merging of the 2 "References" sections might be better off by labelling the second half as "Further reading" (or change the first to "Notes"), per Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes and References. 4) Images should be left the default size (without px specification) so that user-preferences work properly, and for site-consistency, per WP:IMGSIZE. However, for the lead image is often resized to 300px (which infoboxes default to using...) per MOS:IMAGES. 5) Please try to be friendly and calm. Denimadept: please don't refer to people as stupid or articles as crap, it doesn't help anyone respect your opinions, even those of us that may agree with aspects of your statements. Andy: Lar is trying to facilitate/mediate, and your tone of writing is brusque and demanding; please try to be a bit more patient with the admin who is trying to prevent edit-warring and arguments, then everything can go a bit more smoothly. Thanks for the invite to the discussion, Lar. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just sick of the discussion. To me, the answer is obvious. I made that clear when I first inserted the infobox. I've stated my reasons, I've rebutted the idiots, and I'm done. If y'all want to rehash it again, feel free. - Denimadept (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please can we keep in mind that the enforcement of uniformity, where a flexibile approach avoids shoehorning a medieval bridge into a template designed for modern engineering, is a pattern of indoctrination that not all editors share. There is no inherent value in conformity, other than avoiding confusion to the Wikipedia reader, who is our client here. If Ponte Vecchio has a "nonstandard" disinfobox, perhaps it is a nonstandard bridge. Unthinkable? --Wetman (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Yes, completely unreasonable. - Denimadept (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable that you think this bridge fits into your little square info box. I guess I wouldn't find it so unreasonable if someone wants to waste their time and come up with a new info box that would be a better fit but I still think no info box is the better choice. I agree with Quiddity on their take of the "Gallery" section.- Josette (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to play Devil's advocate, but I can understand how someone might see that Notre Dame de Paris may not be an appropriate candidate for the placement of {{infobox building}} while the example Law Courts of Brussels might be ... Sswonk (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Josette, it's clear that you're correct. It doesn't fit into the infobox. That's why there's also prose in the article. Also, not only. - Denimadept (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@Sswonk: I'm confused. To my read those buildings are both buildings with significant historic import, Notre Dame perhaps MORE so, but it's a matter of degree, not kind, and they are both fundamentally buildings. My view is that Notre Dame de Paris should have an infobox too. I skimmed that talk and didn't see where it was discussed, was it proposed to have one and rejected or something? (maybe in a GA review?) PV is more than just a bridge. It needs an infobox with both the bridge-nature and the building-nature, at least. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Without going into detail, Notre Dame de Paris is and means different things to different people, as a landmark, cathedral, cultural icon, subject of art, medieval art in its own right. It was constructed over several generations with many architects. So some objections to an {{infobox building}} have the potential to be raised and gain some traction at discussions. I think that would not be the case with the Courts building, it is primarily a building and only secondarily a landmark, it had a single architect and was built in one fell seventeen-year swoop. I briefly looked for arguments about the lack of an infobox at Notre Dame, couldn't find any but saw similarities of Ponte Vecchio to Notre Dame while thinking about your wife's entry. Sswonk (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I gotcha now, thanks for the clarification. So you're saying that you expected to find a similar discussion at NDdP because of all the things it means to folk (as PV does) and were surprised not to find same, suggesting that this is (even more of) an outlier (than we thought)? ... if so that's a strong argument for ending this experiment. Conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Chains_of_infoboxes seems to be percolating along usefully. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that I expected to find a discussion although I thought there might be one, if that subtle difference makes sense. With my comment re: what Josette wrote, the focus should be on the "I can understand how" opener. All I am saying to Josette and readers is that arguments against specific infoboxes for some articles are likely to occur and this, like Notre Dame, is an example of where they are most likely. The Courts article talk on the other hand would be a very unlikely place for an argument against that infobox to occur. You are welcome to take it in the direction you did, but that wasn't what I was saying. Again, I don't want to join a revived infobox vs. no infobox argument here. Now I am curious, I am biting the bullet and taking a look at the extensive Notre Dame article history in full to see if an infobox was ever introduced. Sswonk (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost two days and no further comment? That suggests the old compromise is where we stick, barring movement. I guess, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There is WP-wide consensus that infoboxes are not hidden, and a local discussion can't override that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, yes it can override it, we're not talking a WMF mandate here. The MoS is a guideline, not policy much less a mandate, and the needs of specific articles may sometimes result in deviations from it. I'm in favor of this article having a (hybrid bridge/building) non hidden infobox, but only if local consensus can be brought round to that viewpoint. Your approach isn't the way to achieve that. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, it can not. By definition. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your definition framework appears to be flawed. Local consensus overrides the MoS all the time. Special circumstances, special needs, special allowances made. If you want to argue that point, this ain't the place, take it somewhere else please. Instead, make the case that the special circumstances of this article aren't significant enough to require special allowances as drastic as collapsing infoboxes, and you'll find me supporting your case rather than pointing out that your current approach isn't helpful. Which it is not. I had thought that your two arbcom cases and a year long ban from editing would be a sufficient word to the wise. I hope that clarifies matters enough to enable you to proceed constructively, because your constructive, substantive input is much wanted. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside your snide ad hominem attack; where did I mention the MoS, in the posts to which you are responding? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You mention "WP-wide consensus". If you're not referring to the MoS (which many posters in this thread have made various references to) what are you referring to, then? I'm not going to play "guess what Andy's talking about". If you have a point, make it. Your approach is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

@Andy; I think I agree with much of your position. I don't like the hidden trick here. I also know you've done good work re microformats. But I agree with Larry that your posts here are of an inappropriate tone. Do-over, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh? The script-hidden infobox is very weird. Maybe the bridge box is not necessary; this is rather more than a bridge, so some other box might be better. The hidden aspect should go; this presents serious usability issues for readers. People are idiots; large numbers will never open the box (and I see that it doesn't print which seems a mix of the dom scripting and the css; sure it's fixable, but who wants to push down that road?). The intent here seems to be to have a large gallery column on the right as well as further down. I noted one dupe, so we could reduce the right by one (and maybe juggle a few about). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (ducks and covers;)

The gallery does need thinning down, at least, if not outright elimination by moving/removing individual images after evaluation. It was gone at one point and then came back. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I like galleries ;) I could see cutting this one to two rows of four with couple more bugged-under some infobox on the side. The idiots gentle readers I referred to above will never follow the commons link. Above you refer to this as a hybrid bridge/building, which it certainly is. We would have template:Infobox building and template:Infobox structure (right? wrong; well, something...) and they're likely as problematic as the generic template:Infobox bridge; so so sort of custom one may be in order; or a different template entirely if we have a good and flexible base sort of thing. I really do feel the hidden trick should go. The rest is about sorting a reasonable sidebar that present some good summary info and good top pic and a couple more under it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Images evaluated, sorted, trimmed, and moved.

Assuming you mean Template:Infobox building and Template:Infobox bridge, a hybrid/custom infobox was suggested before. I still strongly support that option as a best-possible compromise. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I knew that; it was getting late. I redirect one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've requested, in the appropriate place, not here, a generic way to merge infoboxes. The {{infobox nrhp}} can do it, but {{infobox bridge}} can't on its own, and I'm not familiar with {{infobox building}}. Maybe someone who understands the microcoding can investigate this? - Denimadept (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the place you requested the merge? I'd be interested in reading more about that! You say that nrhp supports it? I wonder if Jack Merridew could get bridge and or building to do it too? He's a whiz with template syntax... or so I hear. :) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a poke at this page. Anyone arguing to keep the collapse behavoir, still? My trip for tomorrow was bumped until after Idul Fitri, so I'll have time ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No arguments - time for the hidden infobox to go. - Josette (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes, but I'm not seeing it as such there. As you can see, the issue has come up before. The way {{infobox nrhp}} does it is to kinda chain it on the end of a previous infobox. What might be good is to have a standard infobox field, always the last one in every infobox, (call it "chain", maybe) where you can add another infobox. Hm. Think I'll go suggest that and see what happens. Done. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Chains of infoboxes - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalemate?

I asked Jack Merridew to see if he could sort the issues around getting the bridge and building boxes to glom together into one composite box, but I don't think he's made a lot of progress... (see User:Lar/multibox test and the templates it embeds). My hope was that if this could be figured out we could move to a box that had both the bridge-nature and the building-nature to satisfy the "not just a bridge" view point. But I'm not sure how else to proceed. This article is a singleton as far as I know, no other article has a collapsing infobox. Or are there others? ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there are others, but I don't think the collapsible infobox is a good idea. I think I've made it clear that I don't want an infobox at all, but it also seems clear that there are more people here who want some kind of box--whether it be the standard bridge box or a custom box. Maybe we could discuss what information we think readers need at a glance, and we can design a custom box around that. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion from last year also concerned Cellini Salt Cellar, which for a time used {{infobox artifact}}, then a collapsible type as here, followed by back to standard infobox and finally none—see history beginning July 24, 2008. Other than that, I know of no other use of this type of infobox. Rather than removal of this hiding infobox, which has no support I can see here, I believe we are back to an "to infobox or not to infobox" issue. I will excuse myself from that but recommend the approach suggested by Akhilleus. Sswonk (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ponte Vecchio. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219172808/http://www.holiday-velvet.com/guide/2009/11/florence-ponte-vecchio-history/ to http://www.holiday-velvet.com/guide/2009/11/florence-ponte-vecchio-history/

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) 00:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why famous?

I’m sure I’m going to sound like a real pleb... but I can’t understand this;

It was rebuilt in 1345. Giorgio Vasari recorded the traditional view of his day that attributed its design to Taddeo Gaddi — besides Giotto one of the few artistic names of the trecento still recalled two hundred years later. Modern historians present Neri di Fioravanti as a possible candidate.

What’s Giotto got to do with it? Did Gaddi design any of it? Is the traditional view of Vasari still (even partially) valid? I presume the “attributed” refers to the 1345 design. I presume Fioravanti is a possible candidate for the 1345 design [not clear, I reckon].

But mostly; why is it famous? Paintings? Song (apart from Puccini)? Historical event? Do people see it as beautiful?

MBG02 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)