Talk:Pulteney Bridge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pulteney Bridge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Pulteney Bridge has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 26, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Pulteney Bridge received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Mid‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sir William Pulteney, 5th Baronet was copied or moved into Pulteney Bridge with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

File:Puente Pulteney, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 51.JPG to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Puente Pulteney, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 51.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on December 10, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Pulteney Bridge is an arch bridge that crosses the River Avon in Bath, England. Designed by Robert Adam and completed by 1774, it connects Bath with the Georgian town of Bathwick. The Grade I listed building has shops built across its full 45-metre (148 ft) span.Photograph: Diego Delso

Archive – More featured pictures...

The mysterious fourth bridge

"One of only four bridges in the world to have shops across its full span on both sides."

In addition to the Ponte Vecchio in Florence and the Rialto Bridge in Venice, the four alluded to may include the Cedar Street Bridge in Sandpoint, Idaho, U.S.A. Sca (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the four bridges are 1) Florence’s Ponte Vecchio, 2) Bath’s Pulteney Bridge, 3) Venice’s Rialto Bridge, and 4) Erfurt’s Krämerbrücke. Hope this helps. BrightOrion | talk 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cantilevering to the southern face.

The coverage of the development and the loss of Adam's classical purity still isn't well detailed (web searching throws up a few much more detailed sites doing a better job of it). Re this change, it removed the claim that the shops had once been cantilevered out on both sides. I've left this, though unsourced, because I can't find anything to support WP's previous claim that there had ever been cantilevering to the southern, now clear, facade. There's some description of the South side being stripped back before 1951, but it's unclear if this was just the road face, or the outer face too. Sources anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wrote this originally based on the work of Jean Manco. There is a hint in this web page when she says "It was not to last. 19th-century shopkeepers altered windows, or cantilevered out over the river as the fancy took them." however the detail is in Manco, Jean (1995). "Pulteney Bridge". Architectural History. 38 (38): 129–145. doi:10.2307/1568625. JSTOR 1568625. (unfortunately mostly behind a paywall) when on page 140 she says "Engravings then show little change until the middle years of the century, when shop-keepers on both sides of the bridge began building timber additions, cantilevered out over the river like those on the Ponte Vecchio. An engraving of 1864 shows the two on the south side, while a watercolour of the north side (Fig 18) was made to support a complaint by William Lewis to the Sanitary Committee in 1873." (it then has a quote from the committee hearing/report about throwing out water closets via holes in the cantilevered parts, straight into the river). (this (dated 1864) or this (1886) may be the image concerned).— Rod ^talk 10:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was wondering why I was finding it so hard to find old illustrations of the south face showing this. I just wasn't looking closely enough at the details.

So what are these? Your illustrations confirm that it happened, but nor is it substantial. This isn't the north face, where whole rooms and a staircase were being tacked on. Is a couple of small bits of khazilevering like this enough to justify use of the term?

I hope the IP who removed this (and who has a relevant IP address) might comment further? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just welcomed the IP and pointed them to this discussion. It appears we have a category of images from ILN 1864 on commons but unfortunately it doesn't include this one.— Rod ^talk 11:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked up the IP address following your comment - but doesn't mean they are council staff could just be someone using one of their library computers or similar.— Rod ^talk 11:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pulteney 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:

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: 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) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pediment

The pediment article suggests this an open pediment, not a broken pediment - is it right? catslash (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: a trawl of Google Books shows that there is no consensus as to which is broken and which is open, unless qualified with -apex or -bed. According, I shall change broken to broken-bed to remove the ambiguity. (The pediment article could be a bit more WP:NPOV about this.) catslash (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]