Talk:Ryde Bridge

Australia: Sydney / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ryde Bridge is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridge closure

The premier is thinking of closing the ryde bridge for a few months or years ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.37.196 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for improvement

Under REFERENCES. Third bullet point. It reads simply [1]. When clicked, it takes one to another website "On This day - Naval Historical Society of Australia". I cannot see the relevance of this website to Ryde Bridge. Perhaps it was intended as a reference for the statement. "The keel of HMAS Stuart (destroyer) is buried in the mud below Ryde Bridge." If so, this page of the website contains nothing about HMAS Stuart. Could some editor more experienced than me please either correct the reference so that its points to an appropriate web page and make the wording less cryptic than [1] or; delete it. Thank You Rick from Richmond (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks. Yes, I agree, it's not a great link. And the database does not appear searchable. I've cleaned up the reference; but the link needs to be rectified. Rangasyd (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]