Talk:Gateway Arch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ONE KC PLACE IS TALLER[edit]

One Kansas City place is the tallest habitable structure in the State of Missouri, at 632 feet tall. Some St. Louisian hijacked the article and claimed the opposite. Sources:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6679 http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&id=1kansascityplace-kansascity-mo-usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.103.10 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, generally considered the end all be all of building height determination, has determined the height of One Kansas City Place to be 623' and the Gateway Arch to be 630'
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/one-kansas-city-place/1895
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/gateway-arch/9607 97.87.205.106 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INVISIBLE windows?[edit]

The article currently states, "Thirty-two small windows (16 per side) measuring 7 x 27 inches (178 mm x 686 mm), almost invisible from the ground, allow views..." You can't be serious! I've visited the arch twice (once just yesterday), and my 40-year-old eyes have no problem seeing the windows from the ground. (I do not wear glasses, or contacts to correct my vision.) I'm deleting the words "almost invisible" from this article, as it's incorrect and adds nothing to the article. 70.169.212.130 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deine mudda[edit]

I think the section giving equations is not helpful or necessary. There could be a link to an article about catenary and its equations instead. I am not 100% positive, but i also think the equations are WRONG. I believe they describe a catenary, which describes the shape that a uniform chain or rope would hang in. But, the arch is designed as a weighted catenary, which is different, reflecting the form of a chain with heavy links at the ends and lighter in the middle. That hangs differently, and I do not believe the equations are correct.

I don't believe the equations are sourced to a source that applies specifically to the Gateway arch. I believe, rather, that someone looked up equations for catenary arch and put them in, which is wrong because the arch is not a regular catenary arch. Anyhow, a valid source is needed to support use of the equations.

The source that I learnt about the arch following the weighted catenary arch form is the NRHP inventory/nomination document that i read some time ago. I don't know if i read that and did not add it to the article, or if i added it and someone deleted it. I will try adding it now. If there is no big discussion, i will plan to drop the equations section eventually. doncram (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a source for the equations points to the Mathematica example that depicts an arch and names the example Jefferson / Gateway Arch or whatever. However, the example states that the Gateway arch is "essentially" a catenary. The example is an abstraction, which is fine for an example, but it is NOT claiming that the Gateway ARch is a simple catenary and it is not a valid source for that point (which would be false if claimed). doncram (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

better picture?[edit]

seems like there should be a better overall-perspective photo of the arch on this page. i don't live near st. louis, so i can't get one myself, but a picture of the complete arch in context would be better than the partial one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.115.204 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG / vector graphic?[edit]

Can't somebody enter in that formula and make us a SVG / vector graphic of the exact profile of the arch? --75.42.201.77 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I replaced the image that was on the page with my own, as it gives a broader and thus more informative picture of the Arch. If you think the old one should've stayed, let me know. Saberwolf116 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the two halves of the arch separated to fit the last piece in place[edit]

As the subject now states:

" During construction, both legs were built up simultaneously. When the time came to connect both legs together at the apex, thermal expansion of the sunward facing south leg prevented it from aligning precisely with the north leg. This alignment problem was solved when the St. Louis Fire Department sprayed the south leg with water from firehoses until it had cooled to the point where it aligned with the north leg."

This is simply not true - it is well known that jack mechanisms were inserted between the two arch halves to spread the legs apart for insertion of the last piece. Water was used on the north leg, but this did not solve the gap problem.

tchrapkiewicz 24.208.228.13 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well-known, it shouldn't be difficult to locate a reliable source for citation purposes. Doniago (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in that section, "The keystone was inserted in 13 minutes,[31] only 6 inches (15 cm) remained. For the next section, a hydraulic jack had to pry apart the legs six feet. The last section was left only 2.5 feet (0.76 m)." is utterly obscure and needs to be rewritten to make sense. A compressed time line of the Arch's first conception to its completion, from 1933 to 1968, would help to clarify most of the article, for those who want an overview. 72.179.53.2 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Several Hundred People Trapped?[edit]

Really? "On July 21, 2007 several hundred people were trapped in the trams or at the top of the Arch." The wording makes it seem like there's about 300 people up there, yet both trams together can only hold 80 people. 220 people at the top seems like a bit much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.55.154 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claustrophobia[edit]

Those tram cars are definitely not for the morbidly claustrophobic. Part of the problem is psychological: they may not be as densely crowded as some types of elevator, but in an elevator the passengers are at least able to stand up, and there is less perception of being shut in. There are no signs warning potential claustrophobics. When I saw the size of the cars I refused to get in. I can't help wondering how many other people have refused, and how many that do get in suffer panic attacks. Lee M (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction details[edit]

Are data still available on the details of the process of the Arch's construction, such as what companies supplied labor, materials, and from what sources? D. J. Cartwright (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious errors?[edit]

I believe I have found some serious errors related to engineering here, and I am going to remove them. A claim that the tram car rotates 5 deg in its travel seemed ridiculous, as did an Internet article's 155 deg claim (http://www.webcitation.org/5uyoMFrCG). The arch itself makes a curve of less than 90 deg in the tram pathway, and each tram stops before it gets to the horizontal section anyway. So it very well may be 55 deg, but until a reliable engineering source is found and cited, please do not put in deg of tram car rotation. There were other errors as well too, but more of language than numbers (the internal structural concrete goes about halfway up, not all the way and higher (!)) Jack B108 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say 155? Goodvac (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt say "155 degrees" here in the WP entry (my error), but it does say 5 deg, which makes no sense either. Jack B108 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove it. I haven't gotten to that part yet. Goodvac (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good source, the designer of the tram, who does say that a capsule rotates 155 deg. But the track is not a straight curve! While true, this statement is misleading w/o explanation, and I believe this is too complex to try to explain in a WP article: Each capsule rotates approximately 155 degrees during the trip to the top of the Arch. When the capsule starts out from the lower load zone, the tracks are overhead, but as it goes up the Arch they come to be beneath the capsule. All the way along, the framework rotates around the capsule. -Dick Bowser, in a 1986 NPS letter http://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/dick-bowser.htm. I believe that we should leave this out of the article. Net tram car rotation relative to the general curve of the arch, along the tram pathway, maybe 55-80 deg, would be good, but I dont know what that number is. It is not 5 deg Jack B108 (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/feedback[edit]

This is great; this article really should have been GA ages ago, and I'm so glad that Goodvac (talk · contribs) is putting a lot of effort into improving it now.

Some feedback, because I don't want to interfere too much while the page is being actively edited (OK, more like a peer review because I get carried away):

  • I think "the Arch" is preferable over "the arch," because it's the Arch, not just any old arch. I looked at some refs online and many seemed to use "the Arch" over "the arch" as well.
    • Discussion in progress below. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see dates in the form of "1 January 2011" as well as "January 1, 2011." As this is a very U.S.-based topic, I think the latter is preferable because it's the widely used style in the U.S.
  • It might be good to say "US$13 million" the first time you use "$" but IDK what the official MOS recommendation is, if there is one.
  • Lede needs a bit of expansion. Three fleshed-out paragraphs out to be great.
    • Will do when article expansion is complete. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great pics -> File:Gateway Arch.jpg, File:St Louis night expblend.jpg (the latter is an FP, too!). I think the MOS says no image galleries at the bottom, but surely those two images can find their way into the article somehow? Great educational value ;)
    • I'm planning to do this when expansion is complete. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are soooo many resources available: local/cultural impact, whole book about the Arch, PopSci article. Also, I can't currently view these two articles, but they might be useful and I can get access to them through my library: [1], [2].
    • I have access to those JSTOR articles, so I'll look into them. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{convert}} more consistently; some measurements use it and some don't.
  • "... in comparison to the Gateway Arch. 250,000 were expected to attend ..." Sentences shouldn't start with numbers ("250,000") excepting years (2011, etc.), so maybe reword this sentence?
  • "By 12:00 pm., ..." Either "p.m." or "pm" but not "pm." I think.

This article already looks great! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fetchcomms, a very nice article and important too. I rated it C instead of B only because the prose is really not yet flowing - the article is too much a succession of short sentences in separate paragraphs. Is really close to GA and is definitely worth the effort. --Elekhh (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your insight. I'll work on these as I continue expanding the article. Goodvac (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some new news just out today about a planned renovation of the grounds; might be worth a mention in the tourism or history sections: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following your suggestion, I integrated this into the article a few days ago. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this neat image (referring url) that shows a slideshow of different points during construction. I was thinking about uploading it and placing it in the construction section, but then it seemed as if it might be too distracting to the reader. Any insight? Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one frame from that image would be good, but I'm not sure it's in the public domain—at least on another NPS page, they specify which images are PD and not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arch? or an arch that happens to be the Gateway Arch?[edit]

No offense to anyone from the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, or the beloved Midwest, but this monument isnt "the Arch": it is "an arch" that happens to be "the Gateway Arch" along the Big River. There is the Arc de Triomphe (forgive my spelling), the awe-inspiring Landscape and Delicate Arches of Arches Nat'l Park, Ray Kroc's golden arches, and the Arch of Titus in Rome, so I am unwilling to give Jefferson's arch special treatment. One editor, not an arch rival I hope, has complained about my change of the yes, archaic (outdated), common noun capitalization to the more modern style used by academic publishers, including Wikipedia. The complaint was made on my User page, but it belongs here. I think my edit--making a number of "Arch"es into "arch"es--was quite careful and sensitive, and in fact, I believe I actually gave "Gateway"s and capital A's to a couple of neglected "arch"es, making them pretty proper nouns. My two cents, for what it's worth. Cheers, Jack B108 (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference, but two notes: (1) I used "the arch" when I first started on this article largely because I found "the Arch" to be more of a hassle to type and because it looked somewhat odd. (2) both "the arch" and "the Arch" are justifiable—"the arch" because it's an arch (duh), and "the Arch" because it's being used as an abbreviation of the "Gateway Arch". As Fetchcomms said on your talk page, many news organizations use the latter. I wonder if there's any manual of style guideline that applies here. As I said above, I have no preference, so long as whoever who changes it changes them all for the sake of consistency. Goodvac (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons I'm for using "the Arch" is a. it's used by both the NPS and on its official tourism site and b. it is a nickname just like "The Loop", referring to a trolley loop; or "The Muny", short for the Municipal Theatre Association (both of which also happen to be in St. Louis). Yes, it's an arch, but it's named the Arch as well. There are the MOS guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names) but they don't really discuss this. I also see some conflicting guidance from major style guides: the AP Stylebook prefers "the Web" and "the Net" while the Chicago Manual of Style says "the web". It also recommends lowercasing general terms (the army, US Army) with some exceptions ("Coast Guard", "coast guard"). It doesn't really matter right now whether we use "the arch" or "the Arch", but starting a new thread on WT:MOS might be helpful for the future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Arch in Popular Culture[edit]

Is there going to be a section in the article for its place in pop culture? For instance movies, television, and books. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps we should split off the lighting-related parts under "Symbolism" and put some pop culture stuff in there? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The lighting parts were only marginally related to the symbolism; I intended the lighting example to be a more recent example of the part about "persons who need a stage in front of the world". Goodvac (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found some sources relating to maintenance ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) and incidents/safety ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). Perhaps someone would like to add sections for these as well? I'm not sure where they'd best fit in. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on the maintenance stuff and place it in a section of its own temporarily until we can integrate it into another section. Goodvac (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the articles completely yet, so I'll just leave another link for reference in case it contains other info. [24] Goodvac (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, good find. There's also a lot more on its construction, e.g. [25] (already used in the article a little), but I'm not really a construction/mechanical person, so I'm not sure how much of it is really relevant. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more links to go with that (if you or me wants to work on it):

Construction

http://thetartan.org/2006/10/30/scitech/htw

Incidents/events

[26] "Meet the Builders"; [27] parachutist John Vincent; [28] parachutist Kenneth Swyers; [29] Shrinks From Arctic Blast; [30] 4 Trapped; [31] 200 Trapped Goodvac (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America's Favorite Architecture[edit]

The arch is ranked #14 on the list of America's Favorite Architecture (WSJ). Is this worth a mention in the "Awards and recognitions" section? I don't know if it's major enough, and the article's getting long enough already—ideas? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think length is a problem yet. Guadalcanal Campaign (11,000 words) and Inner German border (11,000 words) are some huge FAs. The "Awards and recognitions" section is small, and adding a couple sentences about America's Favorite Architecture wouldn't dramatically increase the article length. Also, I can always try to condense the "Background" section, which unfortunately is still incomplete and will grow yet larger. Goodvac (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing perhaps worth doing is splitting the article into a few pages (i.e., creating a dedicated "History of the Gateway Arch" or something, which itself could be GA or FA-worthy if there's enough content and sources) per WP:Article size. I think that will depend on the ultimate length of the article; I'm adding the AFA mention into the article now, anyway. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely worth considering. I'll try to finish up the "Background" section and see how long the article is then. Goodvac (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking that the incidents/stunts and accidents sections are a bit too detailed for the main article but there's enough content and refs for a standalone "Public access to the Gateway Arch" or something, which could also expand on the 2015 redesign contest (there seems to be a lot of coverage in late 2010/early 2011 regarding that contest). A "Design of the Gateway Arch" might also work. But I agree that the article should be pretty much "finished" (if there's such a thing on Wikipedia) before making any forks of it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The "Background" section is getting a bit unorganized. I'm thinking it would be better to organize the section chronologically using these dates. That way there's a more logical flow of ideas and events. Is this worth trying or are there other organization schemes that would be more viable? Goodvac (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of information, I think chronologically is the better approach than what there is now (but just for the background/history bits, not the entire article). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and I just discovered the second book, (Urban Innovation and Practical Partnerships: An Administrative History of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, 1980–1991, by Bob Moore) and sections like this can contribute greatly to this article's current security/safety section, making it all the more likely that it will need to be split into a new article later. Also, the NPS-created photos can be uploaded to Commons for use in the article. That was a great find, Goodvac! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I'd actually already known about that for quite some time, but I don't think I ever mentioned it before, though I've been using Brown's Administrative History since early this year. I hadn't really perused Moore's book, but the photos look promising.
I've never attempted an article of such scope (I expect you probably haven't either), so struggling through this will be a good learning experience. I had wanted to stay away from splitting up the article, but I guess I have no choice now! I also wanted to stay away from reading and summarizing walls of text like this and this (not exactly at the top of my to-do list for the weekend), but they seem to be the best resource for the history. Goodvac (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That first chapter is nearly 28,000 words (!!) so I hope that doesn't mean a 50,000-word long arch history article :S. I started reading some chapters by Moore and I have to agree that while some of it is quite interesting, it's not how I'd want to spend a weekend. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Some notes to return to later:

  • discrepancy
    • Corrigan (October 27, 1985) states "Regrettably, Eliel Saarinen, Eero's more famous father, who had also entered the competition, was originally advised that he had won, and it took three days to untangle the error."
    • Taylor, Betsy (October 20, 2005) states that Eliel was mistakenly notified as a finalist and "Two hours later" the error was corrected.

Another journal article:

  • "[unknown]". Constructor Magazine. 47. 1965.

Removed content:

  • The arch has had a role as a "giant magnet for persons who need a stage in front of the world."<ref name="Wolf"/>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvac (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Trillin quote added[edit]

Some have questioned whether St. Louis really was—as Saarinen said[1]—the "Gateway to the West"; Kansas City-born "deadline poet" Calvin Trillin has commented on this when comparing himself with poet T. S. Eliot, a St. Louis native:

"I know you're thinking that there are considerable differences between T.S. Eliot and me. Yes, it is true that he was from St. Louis, which started calling itself the Gateway to the West after Eero Saarinen's Gateway Arch was erected, and I'm from Kansas City, where people think of St. Louis not as the Gateway to the West but as the Exit from the East."

Reference cited: Trillin, Calvin (2011). "T. S. Eliot and Me". Quite Enough of Calvin Trillin. Random House. ISBN 1400069823. —68.165.77.101 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though I'm not sure if it's relevant. I'll leave it there for now. Goodvac (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SaarinenPelkonenAlbrecht was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Is the engineering tolerances on the base noteworthy?[edit]

I recalled mention how a tolerance of 1/64 of an inch deviation at the base would have resulted in the sides of the arch not meeting to be joined. At the time, such precision was extremely difficult. Would it be noteworthy enough for inclusion? https://webutils.engg.ksu.edu/asce/files/asce/files/Newsletter/10.22.09.pdf http://faculty.frostburg.edu/educ/mcushall/VFT_Amy.ppt Wzrd1 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General information box[edit]

The general information box says that construction started 50 years ago. These should be taken off. Robert4565 (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

resistant to earthquakes[edit]

Under the characteristics section, it is said( with reference) that "The arch is resistant to earthquakes" this needs to be reworded as no structure is ever "resistant" to earthquakes. some buildings may be more resistant than others but not completly resistant. Can I suggest "The arch has been design to resist expected earthquake actions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.172.166 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One equation or two?[edit]

The follow seems to be a logical statement, not an equation:

Bruce Detmers and other architects expressed the geometric form in blueprints with this equation:

It seems that these are two equivalent equations. If so, please separate them and state in English that they are two separate equations equivalent to each other. The Leftrightarrow doesn't belong in a mathematical equation.CountMacula (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regularly referenced in the Defiance Science Fiction Series[edit]

The Gateway Arch features prominently in the Defiance television series which is partially set in future St Louis (spoiler alert: up until the third season where it is demolished as a plot device). Should this rank a mention in the Cultural Reference section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlesh (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even worth mentioning anymore, since it was cancelled after season 3? I also question the cultural references section at all, as two items were removed from it today, and now the few things left kind of call out a certain lack of cultural references. The remaining ones might be more useful in "See Also" or "External Links," including Defiance. RM2KX (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The items remaining, including Defiance, do at least have sources that establish that someone considered their connections with the arch to be significant. However, it may be arguable whether a single source pointing it out really establishes any significance. The other two items listed appear to me to be more significant in that they were specifically written with regards to the arch. I.e. it's less coincidental. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Gateway Arch. 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:

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) 01:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Gateway Arch. 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:

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) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Eiffel Tower is in the western hemisphere[edit]

And it is taller... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:3840:8320:9D20:C7E1:9EFE:D005 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris is east of the Prime Meridian, making it technically in the Eastern hemisphere. Grey Wanderer (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might mention the arch is obviously a direct ripoff of Adalberto Libera's design for an "Arco Imperiale" at Mussolini's planned 1942 exhibition[edit]

See https://romeonrome.com/2016/01/mussolinis-architectural-legacy-in-rome/ for details.

Photo here https://romeonrome.com/files/2016/01/arco-imperiale-eur-final-project-adalberto-libera-1940-43.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Preview for this is showing an old cached vandalism image?[edit]

Someone made an edit recently which replaced the first image in the article, and while the edit was reverted within a minute, the irrelevant image is still showing up in the page preview popup from links on different pages. I think this is due to some weirdness of the page preview caching the image, but I am unsure how to fix it. I didn't know where it could/should be reported, but I did find | this mediawiki topic showing similar issues in the past and commented there, too. Thanks for any assistance. Cleancutkid (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metres[edit]

The conversion to meters seems to be only approximate. Is there any way to fix this? If I do the calculations with the indicated values in metres, I don’t get the same results. CielProfond (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is using Template:Convert, and it looks to be correct. Could you further explain what you mean, including the numbers? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gateway Arch is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world ????[edit]

The referenced article states that the "Gateway Arch draws the most visitors in St. Louis", not the world. I strongly suspect that the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids and many other tourist sites attract many more visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointbar (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous sentence states "In 1974, the arch was ranked fourth on a list of "most-visited man-made attraction[s]"" .. but you are right the next sentence about most visited tourist attraction in the world is unsourced. Removed. It probably actually is though based on the 1974 stats. Although I suspect it's not as popular as it once was. -- GreenC 14:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gateway_Arch&oldid=1195053567"