![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 28, 2012 and October 28, 2015. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
This article already looks great! / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. / ƒETCH COMMS / 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
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))
A couple more links to go with that (if you or me wants to work on it):
http://thetartan.org/2006/10/30/scitech/htw
[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)
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? / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Some notes to return to later:
Another journal article:
Removed content:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvac ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
The general information box says that construction started 50 years ago. These should be taken off. Robert4565 ( talk) 13:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
The follow seems to be a logical statement, not an 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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/251177/3/Arch-trams-shut-down-stranding-visitors-{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/263425/3/Arch-north-tram-stalls-trapping-visitorsWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And it is taller... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:3840:8320:9D20:C7E1:9EFE:D005 ( talk) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 28, 2012 and October 28, 2015. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
This article already looks great! / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. / ƒETCH COMMS / 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
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))
A couple more links to go with that (if you or me wants to work on it):
http://thetartan.org/2006/10/30/scitech/htw
[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)
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? / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Some notes to return to later:
Another journal article:
Removed content:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvac ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
The general information box says that construction started 50 years ago. These should be taken off. Robert4565 ( talk) 13:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
The follow seems to be a logical statement, not an 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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/251177/3/Arch-trams-shut-down-stranding-visitors-{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/263425/3/Arch-north-tram-stalls-trapping-visitorsWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And it is taller... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:3840:8320:9D20:C7E1:9EFE:D005 ( talk) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)