Talk:London Bridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
London Bridge is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
pictures of London Bridgewith all the houses on it, and London Bridge in Arizona required I think
[edit] Vandalism
This article has been heavily vandalised in the past, I would ask that anyone reverting edits look back a little further to make sure you're not reverting to a less obviously vandalised revision - the final section on the current London Bridge was missing from the main article for a month because it had been stripped out completely! Chris 13:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photography of old london bridge
Question/thought. Old London bridge was demolished after the 1831 completion of the "new" replacement bridge. By the 1830s photography was in its infancy, but undeniably in existance. Were there any photos taken of the two bridges side by side before its demolition, or of the old bridge itself? Graldensblud 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Price of Old London Brdige
While looking through this article, noticed the sold price of the Old London Bridge to Lake Havasu City, Arizona was listed as $12,460,000. This is Incorrect as it was only $2,460,000. This was corrected
--Xemoka 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Rufus
Under the Old Bridge section, if proposals to build a stone structure weren't made until after 1136, how come William Rufus, who'd died in 1100, started raising funds? 21:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] london bridge
The article says that the current london bridge is over the colorado river. This is NOT true! The current london bridge is over the THAMES and the OLD London bridge was REBUILT over the colorado.
- The old london bridge is not over the colorado river but over a canal that leads to Thompson Bay from the colorado.
Actually that's not the old old London Bridge anyway, it's the old new London Bridge. The really old London Bridge, familiar from many prints, only exists now in the form of two pedestrian arches that have been sitting in Victoria Park in Hackney, since 1860. Have taken pix of them, which I will be putting on that page. Can put them up here too, actually...
(Of course that isn't even the oldest, we can go right back to the Romans if necessary. But it is the one, I think, that evokes the strongest mental image.)
this is bs
[edit] "Shoot the bridge"
What does "shoot the bridge" mean? Perhaps this expression should be replaced if it is not common knowledge what it means (if it is, please excuse my ignorance). Kvaks
- I've now clarified this point. -- ChrisO 23:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
"Following the 1136 destruction of London bridge, its maintainer Peter de Colechurch proposed to replace the timber bridge with a permanent stone construction. William Rufus levied a tax to fund the new stone bridge, and construction of a new stone bridge was begun in the reign of Henry II, under de Colechurch's direction, in 1176. "
That can't be right, William Rufus had been dead for 36 years by then. Either the year is wrong or the king is wrong (Stephen was king in 1136). Everyking 00:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] only bridge in London until Westminster Bridge
sorry to split hairs but to say that London Bridge was the only bridge in London until Westminster Bridge was built depends how you define "London". I understand that London and Westminster were two separate cities - they still have separate cathedrals - and I think it's only a result of London's suburban expansion that they have sort-of merged, and now come to be considered as one city.
I'm not sure when this happened - I'll look it up - but going back to the 16th century, and the site of where Westminster Bridge is today can't really be said to be in London at all.
So do we say that London means the Greater London area? If so, then Kingston Bridge was built in medieval times, long before Westminster Bridge. Or do we want to use some definition of "London" that includes Westminster but excludes Kingston? If so, then shouldn't we be more specific?
I think it's possible to make this clearer, though I need to check my facts before I could do it myself. Squashy 09:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name confusion?
"was completed by Rennie's son (of the same name, confusingly) over a seven-year period" I'm confused as to why this was marked "confusingly." I believe it's fairly common for children to be named after their parents, so does it really warrent the comment? Maybe it could read "Rennie's son, of the same name" but the confusingly, I think, really needs to go. I'll just remove it in about a week if no one can present a viable reason as to why it needs to be left in. --Ecurran 03:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How?
How was London bridge destroyed? by sinking and fires, yes, but then, how did the fires start? Lightning? Suicide? A prank gone wrong? etc.
Sazuma 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What does this mean?
This is about half way down the page, does anyone know why? Scientists are wondering if there is going to be another London Bridge, with the second one once again destroyed?(?) --Jackyd101 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old New London Bridge && New New London Bridge
If one was built while the other was being destroyed, this suggests that they were the same dimensions. Is this true? The current bridge is a very wide bridge (6 lanes, plus wide pavements). Perhaps someone could clarify 198.240.130.75 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed statistic
The article currently claims that the bridge blocked 80% of the flow. What does this mean? Where did the 80% go? See Conservation of mass. Since there were arches for the entire length of the bridge, the bridge spanned the entire river, and I'm assuming special diversion channels were not built to divert away 80% of the flow of the Thames, this doesn't make sense. Please reword if you understand the original meaning? Thanks. Ufwuct 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London Bridge and McCulloch
The claim that Robert P McCulloch bought London Bridge believing that he was buying Tower Bridge is hard to pin down as it is an urban legend that is repeated from time to time, as on this web page [1]. I have come across this claim in the UK media on several occasions, but it is untrue because McCulloch was photographed standing on old London Bridge by the press and was well aware of what he was buying.--Ianmacm 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
