Talk:Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
New York (state): Hudson Valley | ||||||||||
|
Civil engineering Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
This bridge would be entirely in New York state, and therefore I have removed the New Jersey template. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, has construction begun, or has the start date slipped? - Denimadept (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in a brief look around the Internet about the plans for the old TZB when the new one is completed -- if someone has solid info, could they post it as part of this article? Thanks.WilliamWQuick (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order for the south/eastbound span to be completed, the old Tappan Zee Bridge must be demolished. The north/westbound span is expected to open on August 25, 2017, and all traffic will then be handled by that span until the other span is completed, which is expected in the spring of 2018. BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
\broadtraffic-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"bridge planners agreed only to a "dedicated express bus lane" in each direction for use during rush hour" Is "only" a word expressing a POV? Seems superfluous in the absence of additional context. Danchall (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: To be moved as requested - we're not sure what this will be called yet, but some consensus here that the proposed name is better than the current one in terms of common name. Note: move requires technical assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New NY Bridge → New Tappan Zee Bridge – This is the common name for the bridge. I am from Westchester County, where one of the ends of the bridge is. The term "New NY Bridge" is simply the name used by the builders on the webpage. I propose moving the article to this title per WP:COMMON NAME. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on New NY Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference notation needs to be updated, it leads to a 404 page. 69.118.47.16 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, as some of you probably know, this happened: [5]. Cuomo's push to rename the Bridge did not work. It is starting to look more and more like the bridge may remain the same. I can't find anything in CAT:WNC that could potentially tell what to do in this situation. At its current state, I support the current article title per WP:COMMONNAME. But we should plan ahead. Here's one idea I had. The original bridge's article title will be: Tappan Zee Bridge (1955), and the new bridge will simply be named: Tappan Zee Bridge. Both pages will have the hatnote template {{about}}
to direct users to each article. Any thoughts? Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: page moved as per COMMONNAME. The previous move had no consensus and altered a longstanding title. An RM should be formed for the other way around if a move is desired. epicgenius (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge → New Tappan Zee Bridge – As per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be the commonly used name and not necessarily the official name. Most news organizations call the bridge the New Tappan Zee Bridge [1] [2].[3] Furthermore, the old Tappan Zee Bridge's official name is the Governor Malcolm Wilson–Tappan Zee Bridge and yet its Wiki entry is the Tappan Zee Bridge[4]. Similarly, the Wiki page for the Triborough Bridge is entitled as such[5] even though its official name is the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. At the very least, the page title should revert back to the New Tappan Zee Bridge as this matter is under a great deal of local dispute[6] (see comments) and.[7]. HudsonValley (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge this New Tappan Zee Bridge article into the existing Tappan Zee Bridge article? (Queens Historian (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
One is a demolished bridge, the other is the bridge built to replace it. The two deserve separate pages. --HudsonValley (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-asking this same question. We don't have separate articles at Goethals Bridge or Kosciuszko Bridge (New York City). Yes it's a new span(s), but it's carrying the same highway over the same body of water between the same end points. Just like the other two. Those cases are very much analogous, as they are, just like the TZB, newly built twin cable-stayed spans built to replace a worn, outdated, lower-capacity cantilever span. (And in all three cases only the one span is, as of this writing, open as the second is still under construction.) Considering the common names are the same (seriously, no one calls it he Mario Cuomo Bridge, and there's a push in the legislature to repeal the name anyway), readers are better served by one article, just like the other two, perfectly analogous cases. oknazevad (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the demolition of the old bridge is not yet complete and the two bridges are very different from each other in structure, appearance etc it makes sense to have the pages separate. --HudsonValley (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that the new replacement spans are complete, I think it's time to revisit the idea that we do not need two separate articles for the Tappan Zee Bridge. I maintain my arguments from the above discussion, that there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for having only one article for bridges where the spans themselves have been replaced due to age while still carrying the same highway between the exact same points. Additionally, much of this article is far too much of step-by-step accounting of the construction which, per WP:NOTNEWS, is not really appropriate article content. If that material were trimmed out, as it should be anyway, it becomes more apparent that there really isn't a need for two articles. There also seems to be some regionalism involved here, that is, editors near the subject are over stressing its importance. Natural, but all the more reason to take a critical eye to the subject. oknazevad (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as people are still debating the bridge names, let's use precedent with the World Trade Center, which also had a recent yet very thorough move debate. This would yield:
Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of this update since the old bridge is no longer in use and in the process of being demolished. I agree that World Trade Center precedent is relevant. --HudsonValley (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved as proposed (with endashes). bd2412 T 17:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– Having two articles for the two bridges with similar names, one operational and one currently being demolished, is confusing. I'd like to propose changing the names of the articles by following what recently happened with the naming of the World Trade Center articles, which added the years they were operational in parentheses. Daybeers (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I've done this before. See Berkley–Dighton Bridge. I renamed the original article for the date the previous bridge was opened, and created a new article without a date for the current bridge with a backlink to the previous bridge. It works, let's do that. I'm tempted to just rename the articles w/o further discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to include the "New NY Bridge" right at the beginning of the article? It's clear it was a working name for the construction project, and not intended as the actual name of the bridge. Plus it was not really used by anyone outside the official channels, as the "new Tappan Zee Bridge" was much more common in writing (and note the lowercase "new".) Just as we don't put working titles for films in the leads of those articles, do we really need to put it here? Or would we be better off just mentioning it in the appropriate section later on, as it is clogging the lead pretty badly for a name that no one really uses. oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CambridgeBayWeather: Why did you put pending changes protection on this? The reason you gave was disruptive editing, but there really hasn't been much of it, especially in the last month. Therefore, I'm a little confused at why you put this protection on, as it seems unnecessary. Please let me know if there is another reason I'm not seeing here. –Daybeers (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On an official NYS website one can find the text of NYS Senate bill S07671 which proposed that name of the bridge not be the "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" but rather the "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge". This was offered as a compromise, but was not allowed to be voted on in the legislative session before the bridge's dedication (Sept, 7, 2018). DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad and Conrailman4122: Please stop edit warring. Instead, discuss civilly here. Thank you. –Daybeers (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your problem with the name changes? Are you so offended cause you worship Cuomo or like NY's tatic ways of ridding history I'm just making the original names as the headlines since it was the original name of the bridge. I'm not ridding the official names to start controversy. The official names, specifically this one, people aren't gonna refer to so it's best to call it whatever it is recognized and not by the "official" name. I don't think you understand how this "name" came to be. People in the Hudson Valley get very offended if they hear "Mario Cuomo" So it's best to put the original name as the headline to avoid confusion. I'm saving you from a worse situation due to the persistent changing. You can block me all you want but I'm just clearing confusion as people still refer to the bridge as "Tappan Zee" I don't regret calling you out as it seems you're lying about an IP address I'm not familiar with and threatening for a further block. So why not we come to a compromise and keep it the way I posed it because it'll all depend on the upcoming election. If Marc Malino, Cuomo's opposing candidate is elected, he promises as an execute order to restore the name. Respect Hudson Valley residents and history and listen to other's feelings, the official name will still be there, but not as the headline as it doesn't matter, it still and will always be the "Tappan Zee Bridge" Conrailman4122 talk) 23:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it HudsonValley! I might as well keep it the way it was and I apologize for any conflict. As a Hudson Valley resident, I still have my beliefs and still disagree with these name changes. But it's best to keep and see what happen because there's still a long battle going on for the restoration. As I said, I'll keep it the way it is and not cause any further problem. Conrailman4122 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change "trust" to "truss." It's a bridge section, not a financial instrument. ;) 24.151.88.255 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, second paragraph: Change "late 2000's" to "early 2000's" ... we aren't even in the "mid 2000's" yet!! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krampetz (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally not making this a requested move, but an informal discussion, but I'm thinking it may be time to revisit renaming this article the "Mario Cuomo Bridge" or similar (not necessarily the full name) as it seems the page has turned on the common use of the Cuomo name, as already seen in the sources of this article, such as in the ones on the section on the bike path, which explicitly contrasts the old Tappan Zee Bridge and the current Cuomo Bridge in so many words. Seems that there's a distinct use of the Cuomo name to distinguish the two bridges, and so it may be time for us to follow suit. I would note that the more recent sources should be given more weight, as ones from ten years ago don't necessarily reflect current usage. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think ones that use the Cuomo name to naturally disambiguate from the old bridge shouldn't be considered. I'd be interested to know if the Cuomo name has caught on in mass media, but I still doubt it has to the public. Does Google Trends have data for it? ɱ (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will bear the name "Cuomo" much longer. Might as well wait to see how this thing shakes out before making a change that will have to be reverted anyway. Keep the name of the article "Tappan Zee Bridge".