Talk:Lions Gate Bridge

Landmark

Do we need this section? It doesn't seem to add any worthwhile information (just uncited trivia). Why not just call it a landmark in the opening sentence and cut this section? Moisejp (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Widening

An IP editor, 172.218.145.134 (talk · contribs) provided the following feedback:

This bridge was not expanded to 3 lanes by repainting the lines. The deck was replaced and in doing so the sidewalks were moved to the outside of the suspension cables. On the non-suspended portion, a wider deck was installed to mate to the suspended portion.

Due to an issue with the feedback, it must be hidden, to avoid loosing the potentially useful feedback when it is hidden I am copying the above non problematic portion of the feedback here. I can't vouch for the accuracy, but it certainly deserves consideration. Monty₈₄₅ 21:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lions Gate Bridge. 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/20090604090712/http://md1.csa.com:80/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=2005082226164CE&q=bridge+design&uid=792876632&setcookie=yes to http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=2005082226164CE&q=bridge+design&uid=792876632&setcookie=yes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715114725/http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-bridges.asp to http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-bridges.asp

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).

• 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) 02:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Date format

@Joeyconnick: For this article, retaining the existing style would mean MDY in the prose and DMY in the citations going by the pre-expansion revisions, for example this 2018 version. In the interest of reader sanity, having a single date format across all Vancouver bridge articles would be more helpful than edit warring on individual articles. Since Canada has no clear consensus on date formats, I simply wished to reflect what the sources used, which is more consistently MDY even today. SounderBruce 02:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure we don't make distinctions between article date format and citation date format, do we? My understanding was that we pick the earliest date format used in citations and go with that. I guess if we just go with earliest date format used anywhere, it would be mdy. Okay, it does seem like MOS:DATERET does specify that and very early versions of the page use mdy in the body. I'll revert.

If readers are driven insane by dmy in some articles and mdy in others, Wikipedia is probably not the place for them. Arbitrarily deciding all X-subject articles will have dmy or mdy is not super-productive and in some cases may go against RETAIN. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)