Talk:Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present)

New Jersey template

This bridge would be entirely in New York state, and therefore I have removed the New Jersey template. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Start of construction?

So, has construction begun, or has the start date slipped? - Denimadept (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What will happen to the old TZB?

I can't find anything in a brief look around the Internet about the plans for the old TZB when the new one is completed -- if someone has solid info, could they post it as part of this article? Thanks.WilliamWQuick (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it from the article, the whole point is that the old TZB is reaching the end of its useful life. I expect, though I don't know, that they'll remove it. If you have some other suggestion(s), you might want to contact the project manager. If nothing else, he or she will know what's planned. Okay, found it. At this page on the project's site, there's a timeline entry for the beginning of demolition of the old bridge. That seems to cover it. - Denimadept (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In order for the south/eastbound span to be completed, the old Tappan Zee Bridge must be demolished. The north/westbound span is expected to open on August 25, 2017, and all traffic will then be handled by that span until the other span is completed, which is expected in the spring of 2018. BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/tappanzeebridge/

  Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

tiny POV issue

"bridge planners agreed only to a "dedicated express bus lane" in each direction for use during rush hour" Is "only" a word expressing a POV? Seems superfluous in the absence of additional context. Danchall (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved as requested - we're not sure what this will be called yet, but some consensus here that the proposed name is better than the current one in terms of common name. Note: move requires technical assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

New NY Bridge → New Tappan Zee Bridge – This is the common name for the bridge. I am from Westchester County, where one of the ends of the bridge is. The term "New NY Bridge" is simply the name used by the builders on the webpage. I propose moving the article to this title per WP:COMMON NAME. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. I guess this is a more unambiguous name than the current name is, because we really don't have an official name yet. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support as nom. There is really not a true name yet, but this is the most distinctive name for someone looking up the article. I am open to discussing the article name again once an official name is chosen. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Are the builders definitively calling the new bridge the "Tappan Zee Bridge," the "New Tappan Zee Bridge," the "New NY Bridge," or a name yet to be determined? I think the distinction matters, because we might otherwise be calling it "Tappan Zee Bridge (2013)" if "New" is not part of the proper name. A comparable example is Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, which is not called "New San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge Eastern Span" because that is not the proper name. epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The website newnybridge.com is used by the construction company on its website. I am pretty sure that was marketing ploy by the gov't contractors. It would probably be useful to collect google search results right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's equally divided between "Tappan Zee" (or some variation thereof) and "New NY Bridge." [1] epicgenius (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I found these results. [[2]] at 345,000 results, [[3]] at 46,600 results, and [[4]] at 232,000 results. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So "new Tappan Zee Bridge" has slightly more results than "New NY Bridge," but "Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement" has the fewest results of all. We still do not have a proper name, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

True. I do not think the original name was much better than the current name. Although 100k more results is a decent difference, maybe we should see what some news sources are calling it. That could help with choosing a new name. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

They'll decide what to name it, eventually. If you have a strong preference, start a petition and send it to the appropriate part of the state government. Personally, I think they should name it the "Emperor Norton Bridge" since San Francisco has had no luck getting the SF Bay Bridge renamed to that. - Denimadept (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Still, the official name is not really relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia chooses the name of articles via common name. That is why the article on the Triborough Bridge is not named "RFK Bridge." The name during construction has even less importance than the official name after construction. It would be better to have the article simply called New Tappan Zee bridge so that the article is descriptive of the bridge it is describing. "New NY Bridge" would not be the name that comes to mind for people searching for an article on the New Tappan Zee Bridge. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New NY Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131230235918/http://lohud.com/article/20120816/NEWS03/308160055/New-Tappan-Zee-Bridge-Nyack-residents-voice-traffic-noise-toll-concerns to http://lohud.com/article/20120816/NEWS03/308160055/New-Tappan-Zee-Bridge-Nyack-residents-voice-traffic-noise-toll-concerns

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The first reference notation needs to be updated, it leads to a 404 page. 69.118.47.16 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Name of Bridge?

So, as some of you probably know, this happened: [5]. Cuomo's push to rename the Bridge did not work. It is starting to look more and more like the bridge may remain the same. I can't find anything in CAT:WNC that could potentially tell what to do in this situation. At its current state, I support the current article title per WP:COMMONNAME. But we should plan ahead. Here's one idea I had. The original bridge's article title will be: Tappan Zee Bridge (1955), and the new bridge will simply be named: Tappan Zee Bridge. Both pages will have the hatnote template {{about}} to direct users to each article. Any thoughts? Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the way I've done it before. See Berkley–Dighton Bridge and its hat note. Regarding the politicians wrangling, who cares? How many people knew the bridge's official name before this? And more, how many cared? Without looking, what's the full name of the (intentionally not linked) San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge? Same thing. - Denimadept (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the name actually went through the whole legislative process, according to several news sources. See: [6] and [7]. I've added the new bridge name to the introduction and the infobox. I don't know the policy about reindexing the page though under the new name though. - JsyBird2532 (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The new name of the article should not have been changed to The Mario M. Cuomo Bridge without consensus. As per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be the commonly used name and not necessarily the official name. As someone who lives in this area, I know that people call the bridge the New Tappan Zee Bridge. That's what most news organizations call it . Furthermore, the old Tappan Zee Bridge's official name is the Governor Malcolm Wilson–Tappan Zee Bridge and yet its Wiki entry is the Tappan Zee Bridge. Similarly, the Wiki page for the Triborough Bridge is entitled as such even though its official name is the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. At the very least, the page title should revert back to the New Tappan Zee Bridge as this matter is under a great deal of local dispute. HudsonValley (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The move has been reverted (see below). However, I support RES2773's plan to round-robin the pages so that the new bridge is named Tappan Zee Bridge. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that RES2773's plan would probably make the most sense. I added an about hatnote template to top of the old Tappan Zee Bridge article earlier today, but can we make the changes now? I think it is confusing when one tries to search for the Tappan Zee on Wikipedia and a page about a bridge that is no longer operational comes up. Daybeers (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 28 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as per COMMONNAME. The previous move had no consensus and altered a longstanding title. An RM should be formed for the other way around if a move is desired. epicgenius (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge → New Tappan Zee Bridge – As per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be the commonly used name and not necessarily the official name. Most news organizations call the bridge the New Tappan Zee Bridge . Furthermore, the old Tappan Zee Bridge's official name is the Governor Malcolm Wilson–Tappan Zee Bridge and yet its Wiki entry is the Tappan Zee Bridge. Similarly, the Wiki page for the Triborough Bridge is entitled as such even though its official name is the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. At the very least, the page title should revert back to the New Tappan Zee Bridge as this matter is under a great deal of local dispute (see comments) and.. HudsonValley (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with Tappan Zee Bridge article

Why not merge this New Tappan Zee Bridge article into the existing Tappan Zee Bridge article? (Queens Historian (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

Because they are two different bridges. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

One is a demolished bridge, the other is the bridge built to replace it. The two deserve separate pages. --HudsonValley (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm re-asking this same question. We don't have separate articles at Goethals Bridge or Kosciuszko Bridge (New York City). Yes it's a new span(s), but it's carrying the same highway over the same body of water between the same end points. Just like the other two. Those cases are very much analogous, as they are, just like the TZB, newly built twin cable-stayed spans built to replace a worn, outdated, lower-capacity cantilever span. (And in all three cases only the one span is, as of this writing, open as the second is still under construction.) Considering the common names are the same (seriously, no one calls it he Mario Cuomo Bridge, and there's a push in the legislature to repeal the name anyway), readers are better served by one article, just like the other two, perfectly analogous cases. oknazevad (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that the demolition of the old bridge is not yet complete and the two bridges are very different from each other in structure, appearance etc it makes sense to have the pages separate. --HudsonValley (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, all still true about the Goethals as well. All the details on structural design and appearance is fair game for the section on each span, but not reason to have different articles. As it stands now this article has too much month-by-month reporting of the construction events, and is full of WP:RECENTISM. Trim that stuff out and the lack of need for a separate article becomes more obvious. oknazevad (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As the bridge is quite literally a work in progress recent-ism is both unavoidable and beneficial as it provides valuable, relevant information. Recentism is not necessarily problematic. Once the new bridge construction is complete and the old bridge is completely demolished, I would support combining the pages. As it stands, there are two separate structures, each with their own significance to the public. The Tappan Zee Bridge is a regional symbol, not just a mode of transportation over the Hudson River. The Goethals doesn't seem to have the same significance. --HudsonValley (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

Well, now that the new replacement spans are complete, I think it's time to revisit the idea that we do not need two separate articles for the Tappan Zee Bridge. I maintain my arguments from the above discussion, that there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for having only one article for bridges where the spans themselves have been replaced due to age while still carrying the same highway between the exact same points. Additionally, much of this article is far too much of step-by-step accounting of the construction which, per WP:NOTNEWS, is not really appropriate article content. If that material were trimmed out, as it should be anyway, it becomes more apparent that there really isn't a need for two articles. There also seems to be some regionalism involved here, that is, editors near the subject are over stressing its importance. Natural, but all the more reason to take a critical eye to the subject. oknazevad (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that both replacement spans were not being used until September 11th, not September 8th as originally planned, and the lack of stability of the original Tappan Zee Bridge structure as the cause of the delay made headlines at all major news outlets in the region. As both structures currently stand alongside each other and the old Tappan Zee bridge is still in the news, keeping the articles separate makes sense for now. Once the original Tappan Zee Bridge has been demolished, I do agree that the pages should be combined. As for step by step accounting of construction, including the progress is appropriate given the sheer scale of the project and number of news articles the bridge has generated and continues to generate. The information is relevant to someone coming to Wikipedia looking to find out more about the bridge, and if the information is properly cited it should stay in my view.HudsonValley (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That the old span caused issues for the opening of one of the new spans is exclactly why there should be one article. Maintaining two articles means duplicated efforts and readers having to jump between two articles for one crossing. As for the second part, yes a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the building of the new spans. But that's because they're newspapers and that is there purpose. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Being able to update quickly when major changes or events occur is a strength of the web-based format, but it still remains true that just because a newspaper published a story does not mean this encyclopedia must include all of that material. oknazevad (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bridge name

Seeing as people are still debating the bridge names, let's use precedent with the World Trade Center, which also had a recent yet very thorough move debate. This would yield:

• Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017)
• Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present)

Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this update since the old bridge is no longer in use and in the process of being demolished. I agree that World Trade Center precedent is relevant. --HudsonValley (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed (with endashes). bd2412 T 17:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• New Tappan Zee Bridge → Tappan Zee Bridge (2017-present)
• Tappan Zee Bridge → Tappan Zee Bridge (1955-2017)

– Having two articles for the two bridges with similar names, one operational and one currently being demolished, is confusing. I'd like to propose changing the names of the articles by following what recently happened with the naming of the World Trade Center articles, which added the years they were operational in parentheses. Daybeers (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Partial support - In my opinion, the "new" bridge should simply be located at Tappan Zee Bridge while the old one can be located at Tappan Zee Bridge (1955-2017) or maybe Old Tappan Zee Bridge. The first one doesn't really need a disambiguation, just a hatnote perhaps._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - 'New Tappan Zee Bridge' is good enough for The New York Times, it's good enough for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Point of order, the NYT also calls it the Mario Cuomo Bridge. Rockypedia (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ehh, that's for their international paper, their world edition. They always make things unnecessarily clear/official for that, obviously. Yet most of their articles, per PointofNoReturn's link, call it the new Tappan Zee Bridge. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - During daily traffic reporting WCBS 880 radio has called the new bridge the Tappan Zee Bridge ever since the old bridge went out of service. When people cross the bridge now they talk about crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge, not the New Tappan Zee Bridge. The proposal would mirror the World Trade Center wiki articles' naming convention as ɱ (talk) stated. --HudsonValley (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support this proposal is better than permanently including "New" in the bridge name; I have no opinion on the other proposed changes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, after a huge debate over naming the World Trade Center buildings, this outcome is clearly most ideal, and likewise applicable here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support but have hyphens instead of dashes per MOS:DASH. And also make Tappan Zee Bridge a disambiguation page. epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The current name for the bridge article made sense until it was done. Now that it is completed and is being used, the default rule of specifying years for the old bridge and the new bridge should be used. The Times category refers to the construction, so its title does not have to be used for the bridge article. Also, the article title should comply with MOS per EpicGeinius. A disambiguation page should be located at "Tappan Zee Bridge". PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why not back to New NY Bridge or even Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge per WP:NATURAL? Note that despite the RM above, I can't verify "New Tappan Zee Bridge" as being anything near commonly used. "new Tappan Zee Bridge" turns up a lot, though, but as a description, not a name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As a Westchester resident, I could assure you that "new Tappan Zee bridge" is used much more than the PR name "New NY Bridge" or the official Mario Cuomo name. And we follow WP:COMMONNAME, so Tappan Zee Bridge should be the article name. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding a little trite: {{citation needed}}. "What everyone says" isn't verifiable, is "New Tappan Zee Bridge", with "New" as part of the proper-noun part of the name, the name in use? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I know, I know, but you could probably find RSs use it commonly too. I swear I've never heard anyone call it the New NY Bridge or Cuomo Bridge, nor would anyone. You don't need to cite things that obvious IMO. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times has a series on the new bridge. It calls it the "New Tappan Zee Bridge". PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well there you have it. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Any additional comments:

I've done this before. See Berkley–Dighton Bridge. I renamed the original article for the date the previous bridge was opened, and created a new article without a date for the current bridge with a backlink to the previous bridge. It works, let's do that. I'm tempted to just rename the articles w/o further discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So you mean you would like to change Tappan Zee Bridge to Tappan Zee Bridge (1955-2017 and New Tappan Zee Bridge to Tappan Zee Bridge? - Daybeers (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm hesitant, Denimadept. With one bridge so recently replacing another, it's not like the primary article everyone will be looking for is the new bridge. With the Berkley bridge, it's easy. Most people are looking for the bridge that's been there for 7 years. But for now, the Tappan Zee bridges are equally notable, and both pretty much still standing. It makes the 1955-2017 and 2017-present indications even more relevant than with the WTC articles. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And they also have a WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which they are currently at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution could be to leave the article names as they are and revisit this once the old Tappan Zee Bridge demolition is complete. I would be in favor of this. --HudsonValley (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: No, I'm saying rename the old bridge article "Tappan Zee Bridge (1955)" and the new bridge article "Tappan Zee Bridge" with a backlink. The Berkeley bridge has not been there for 7 years, more like 2, but I get what you're saying. I don't AGREE, you understand, but I get it. There's also the idea we did for the Triboro Bridge, where three bridges were included in the same article since they are somehow considered one bridge. But I don't agree with using that method here. Then there's what we did with the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, where the replacement is included in the old article, but again, that's not the same situation. Not all of the bridge was replaced, "just" the eastern span. A very non-trivial use of the word "just".

I stand with my original suggestion, as this is a completely new bridge, which utterly replaces its predecessor. Still, a time delay like @HudsonValley: suggests would work. I don't think I renamed the Berkeley article until the new bridge was about finished, which the TZ isn't, just yet. And the Berkeley bridge is/was of relatively lesser interest. - Denimadept (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In reviewing the survey and discussion it looks like there is growing consensus for updating the old bridge's article name to Tappan Zee Bridge (1955-2017 and the remaining discussion focuses primarily on whether to change the New Tappan Zee Bridge article page. Perhaps a survey could be done for the old Tappan Zee article page to see if that's the case. Having the old page titled Tappan Zee Bridge (1955-2017 while the new page remains the same would add clarity, and separating the issues may make it easier to reach consensus. To date the old bridge is in the process of being demolished so parts of it are still standing, but it is no longer in use so this seems appropriate to me. --HudsonValley (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Could we please convert the proposed titles from hyphens to endashes? Per MOS:DASH, year spans should have endashes between them, not hyphens. So Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017) and Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present) instead. epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I second the epicgenius's proposal. --HudsonValley (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the motion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of working name in lead

Do we really need to include the "New NY Bridge" right at the beginning of the article? It's clear it was a working name for the construction project, and not intended as the actual name of the bridge. Plus it was not really used by anyone outside the official channels, as the "new Tappan Zee Bridge" was much more common in writing (and note the lowercase "new".) Just as we don't put working titles for films in the leads of those articles, do we really need to put it here? Or would we be better off just mentioning it in the appropriate section later on, as it is clogging the lead pretty badly for a name that no one really uses. oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I just moved the "New NY Bridge" appellation to the "Naming" section. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes protection

@CambridgeBayWeather: Why did you put pending changes protection on this? The reason you gave was disruptive editing, but there really hasn't been much of it, especially in the last month. Therefore, I'm a little confused at why you put this protection on, as it seems unnecessary. Please let me know if there is another reason I'm not seeing here. –Daybeers (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

See this request. It certainly didn't warrant indefinite semi-protection. But there was slow and steady disruptive editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Compromise name legislation and dedication

On an official NYS website one can find the text of NYS Senate bill S07671 which proposed that name of the bridge not be the "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" but rather the "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge". This was offered as a compromise, but was not allowed to be voted on in the legislative session before the bridge's dedication (Sept, 7, 2018). DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Infobox Naming

@Oknazevad and Conrailman4122: Please stop edit warring. Instead, discuss civilly here. Thank you. –Daybeers (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who cursed out the other guy when he continuously reverted despite being reverted by four different editors. I have filed an WP:ANEW report, which I should have done a couple of days ago. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Conrailman4122 is the only one edit warring here, across several pages (see his contributions) and was appropriately blocked. All of us as editors have conceded to the viewpoints of others when the rationale is sound - we understand that consensus does not always swing our way. That said, I am doing my best to WP:AGF and would welcome constructive contributions from this editor in the future. HudsonValley (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Now socking with IP 67.87.196.115. Actually, looks like he was using that first. Block should be upgraded. oknazevad (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What's your problem with the name changes? Are you so offended cause you worship Cuomo or like NY's tatic ways of ridding history I'm just making the original names as the headlines since it was the original name of the bridge. I'm not ridding the official names to start controversy. The official names, specifically this one, people aren't gonna refer to so it's best to call it whatever it is recognized and not by the "official" name. I don't think you understand how this "name" came to be. People in the Hudson Valley get very offended if they hear "Mario Cuomo" So it's best to put the original name as the headline to avoid confusion. I'm saving you from a worse situation due to the persistent changing. You can block me all you want but I'm just clearing confusion as people still refer to the bridge as "Tappan Zee" I don't regret calling you out as it seems you're lying about an IP address I'm not familiar with and threatening for a further block. So why not we come to a compromise and keep it the way I posed it because it'll all depend on the upcoming election. If Marc Malino, Cuomo's opposing candidate is elected, he promises as an execute order to restore the name. Respect Hudson Valley residents and history and listen to other's feelings, the official name will still be there, but not as the headline as it doesn't matter, it still and will always be the "Tappan Zee Bridge" Conrailman4122 talk) 23:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in this discussion. As you can see by reading earlier entries in this Talk page, last year I championed changing the article title back to the Tappan Zee Bridge despite the official name change and was ultimately successful in doing so. I also successfully requested that the page be move protected to avoid future similar problems.

[Citations trimmed]"The new name of the article should not have been changed to The Mario M. Cuomo Bridge without consensus. As per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be the commonly used name and not necessarily the official name. As someone who lives in this area, I know that people call the bridge the New Tappan Zee Bridge. That's what most news organizations call it. Furthermore, the old Tappan Zee Bridge's official name is the Governor Malcolm Wilson–Tappan Zee Bridge and yet its Wiki entry is the Tappan Zee Bridge. Similarly, the Wiki page for the Triborough Bridge is entitled as such even though its official name is the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. At the very least, the page title should revert back to the New Tappan Zee Bridge as this matter is under a great deal of local dispute. HudsonValley (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)"

However WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles - not infobox titles. As you can see in the edit history for this article page, when another editor initially placed the official name as the infobox title, I objected and reversed it. However when they showed legitimate precedent for having the official name of bridges, tunnels etc as the infobox header even when the common name and therefore article title did not match, I conceded their point even though I happen to think it looks mismatched and would rather have it the other way, personally. Because Wikipedia is not about personal feelings, it's a collective encyclopedia where these kinds of decisions are made by consensus. I hope that helps. HudsonValley (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it HudsonValley! I might as well keep it the way it was and I apologize for any conflict. As a Hudson Valley resident, I still have my beliefs and still disagree with these name changes. But it's best to keep and see what happen because there's still a long battle going on for the restoration. As I said, I'll keep it the way it is and not cause any further problem. Conrailman4122 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

Change "trust" to "truss." It's a bridge section, not a financial instrument. ;) 24.151.88.255 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, second paragraph: Change "late 2000's" to "early 2000's" ... we aren't even in the "mid 2000's" yet!! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krampetz (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Krampetz: Yes we are, just like the 1980s, 1990s, etc. It's just a span of 10 years. –Daybeers (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There is no universally accepted way to refer to the decade (see Aughts), and since we're in the first half of the 21rst century the meaning is clear. HudsonValley (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly time to revisit the name

Intentionally not making this a requested move, but an informal discussion, but I'm thinking it may be time to revisit renaming this article the "Mario Cuomo Bridge" or similar (not necessarily the full name) as it seems the page has turned on the common use of the Cuomo name, as already seen in the sources of this article, such as in the ones on the section on the bike path, which explicitly contrasts the old Tappan Zee Bridge and the current Cuomo Bridge in so many words. Seems that there's a distinct use of the Cuomo name to distinguish the two bridges, and so it may be time for us to follow suit. I would note that the more recent sources should be given more weight, as ones from ten years ago don't necessarily reflect current usage. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I’d be willing to have a discussion about this article’s name. Needforspeed888 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think ones that use the Cuomo name to naturally disambiguate from the old bridge shouldn't be considered. I'd be interested to know if the Cuomo name has caught on in mass media, but I still doubt it has to the public. Does Google Trends have data for it? ɱ (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Tappan Zee Bridge" remains the commonly used name for the bridge in my experience. Google Trends data shows that people still search "directions to the tappan zee bridge" - there has not been a single Google search for "directions to the cuomo bridge" (or any reasonable variants thereof that I could come up with) . This situation seems similar to the Triborough Bridge - it would seem appropriate to follow that precedent re: naming convention. However, it does seem time to discuss having one Tappan Zee Bridge page rather than two now that the original Tappan Zee Bridge has been fully demolished to follow the precedents of Goethals Bridge and Kosciuszko Bridge (New York City) as per previous discussion. HudsonValley (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic - those bridges are much smaller and far less written-about. The old Tappan Zee Bridge article has a wealth of content and sources beyond just a few paragraphs in an article. I think World Trade Center (1973–2001) and World Trade Center (2001–present) has been a better precedent for massively notable structures rebuilt in the 21st c. ɱ (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While the Tappan Zee Bridge is more notable than other regional bridges, it is certainly less notable than the World Trade Center, particularly given the infamous 9/11 terrorist attack. I am sympathetic to the argument about keeping the disambiguation pages due to the wealth of information on the page for the original bridge, however I am curious as to whether there are precedents for keeping dismbiguation pages for other bridges that have been replaced/rebuilt. Going back to the nbaming discussion though, what did you think of the Google Trends data I previously cited? HudsonValley (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

They both still have innumerous sources documenting them, and are both very much in the public eye for New Yorkers, much more than those smaller bridges. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about disambigs? But yes, I think your Google Trends data accurately shows the public still refers to it as the Tappan Zee. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no Tappan Zee bridge anymore. The bridge that exists, is called Mario Cuomo bridge. --Drako (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be the commonly used name and not necessarily the official name. If you think the common name has become the Mario Cuomo Bridge, please provide evidence to support that. HudsonValley (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

All signage on all access roads leading to the bridge now say "Gov Mario M Cuomo Bridge." There is no access that still refers to it by the old name. As far as Google Trends, I don't think you can use it to distinguish the large number of news articles which refer to "the Gov Mario M Cuomo Bridge (formerly known as the Tappan Zee Bridge)," which is a construction I see often in the local papers. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No rush. With the Governor's resignation persistent calls to revert to Tappan Zee have increased (with 75% in favor in a recent WCBS poll).[8] The old bridge was named after Gov. Malcom Wilson, but no one ever called it that. (Signage is hardly determinative in as much as the Feds made Andrew replace his Thruway signs.) Tappan Zee will remain if only because (1) long use, and (2) conveniently describing its location. (They had to add Ed Koch's name to the Queensboro so people would know where it was.) Manannan67 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@DrGaellon: I agree with Manannan67 above. The fact that signage on approach roads has all been changed to the Cuomo name is not an indicator of whether that is the name that should be used on the article. That's required by the FHWA; we see signs to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge and Hugh L. Carey Tunnel, yet the common names remain the Triborough Bridge and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, respectively.

As far as "the Gov Mario M Cuomo Bridge (formerly known as the Tappan Zee Bridge)" is concerned, this indicates that the bridge isn't well known enough by the "Cuomo" name and requires "Tappan Zee" for distinction. Therefore, Sicaspi is incorrect in saying that "There is no Tappan Zee bridge anymore." Not only is there a bridge over the Tappan Zee, but also, it is still colloquially referred to as the "Tappan Zee Bridge". Under WP:COMMONNAME, the "Tappan Zee Bridge" name is still more frequently used, with the Cuomo name only being the official name (and one that requires the media to clarify what they're talking about). Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

”Common name”… for what? The bridge you are referring to does not exist anymore. It was demolished. The bridge that currently exists, is a new structure. You can’t use old occurrences of a different bridge, to apply commonname policy here; as those results refer to a different bridge.--Drako (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I get that the Governor Dewey bridge was demolished. However, I would like to see evidence that "The bridge you are referring to does not exist anymore. It was demolished." I don't care whether these are reliable sources that explicitly mention the Tappan Zee Bridge being demolished, or whether the search results refer more often to "Cuomo" than to "Tappan Zee". As it is, I'm not seeing any such proof. What we do know, though, is that the bridge is the only fixed crossing of the Tappan Zee waterway at that location. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it will bear the name "Cuomo" much longer. Might as well wait to see how this thing shakes out before making a change that will have to be reverted anyway. Keep the name of the article "Tappan Zee Bridge".

Judging from news reports, there's already a movement to change the official name back. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)::

Momentum seems to be building to revert the name. I am in favor of tabling this discussion to be possibly revisited if appropriate in the future. HudsonValley (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References