Jump to content

Talk:Penang Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It should be more clear in which direction you pay the toll - "Perai toll plaza (enter bridge only)" doesn't mean much to most people. Do you pay to leave the island or enter the island? Also, I heard that a Korean company built the bridge. If anyone knows who that was, that would be nice to mention here also. --Commking 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to pay when you enter Penang island, this is the same case for the nearby ferry service. I was travelling on the bridge last night, wonder if the toll fare of vehicles should be listed in the article. And it needs some copyediting too. I'm not sure about the company who built the bridge though. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company that built the Penang Bridge was the parent company of PLUS Expressways Berhad and Penang Bridge Sdn Bhd, United Engineers Malaysia (UEM). Hezery99 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False information

[edit]

The bridge is 80 km in length? furthermore 8.4 mile doesnt correspond to 80 km. It's roughly 13 km instead. __earth (Talk) 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to EarthTalk comment, Penang Bridge not under PLUS Expressways Berhad (PEB) but under UEM Builders Berhad. The concession of Penang Bridge also seperate from PLUS (awarded by the government under different concession agreemeent). Please refer to http://www.uembuilders.com/uembb_group.php and http://www.penangbridge.com.my/. --Suryasuharman 08:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I drove the Penang bridge today, from the toll to the end of the bridge, direction Bayan Lepas, it's ONLY 8.2km... I wanted to do this for a long time because i couldn't believe that it length 13km. OscarKapac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarkapac (talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-leading information

[edit]

Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me that has a personal gripe with the stated official length of this bridge. I have traveled it many times already and I do not believe it should be stated as being 13.5 km long. Here is the break down that I have been able to measure while driving it.

Shore to shore, is about 8.05 km. It is stated on this page that the over water is 8.4 km and i think is a pretty generous figure here.

Mainland elevated side is about 0.4 km, and the toll both is another 0.3 km further inland (0.7 km from shore)

Island elevated sided is a bit more complicated since the road seperates into 2 different directions. Going north towards GeorgeTown, both directions are elevated for about 0.4 km inland. Going south and leaving the bridge is only elevated for about 50 meters, whereas the on ramp from the south is elevated about 0.6 km on the shore.

My guess is that the 13.5 km stated distance is the total road length distance for the whole bridge project including completely crounded roads from the previously exiting roads, which to me is a great over statement of what a normal person would consider a part of this bridge length. It is pretty easy to verify the distances I have provide from the google maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&z=14&ll=5.357538,100.353069&spn=0.050077,0.088749&t=k&om=1

To me this just shows how a country can mis-lead the rest of the world in how long their bridge really is.

I would like to see this wiki page changed to a more realistic distance preferably shore-to-shore of 8.05 km or elevated bridge distance 8.5 km to 9.05 km. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.187.7 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Quote your figure. Else, WP:OR. Good day. __earth (Talk) 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps you can refer to the following link for the bridge schematic drawing (bridge detail description) for reference: http://www.penangbridge.com.my/bridgedetails.php --Suryasuharman 08:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, and accordingly it can be seen that 8.4 is the elevated bridge and there is anditional 5.1 KM of project surface roads including the toll plaza which are not elevated in any way. I believe the 13.5 KM should be changed to clarify that is "project length" since the way it is now can easily confuse most into thinking that is the distance over water.

Fair use rationale for Image:Pluslogo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Pluslogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info

[edit]

In Aug-Sep 2018, @Pizza1016: removed a large part of the article. Is this desirable? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: Thanks for the ping. Allow me to explain the rationale for my edits/removals (here). The two major sections I removed are a list of the specifications of the bridge and the table of toll rates. I did so on the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the listed specifications, while sourced, were overly detailed, and were not used to elaborate on a matter, or otherwise serve a purpose, in the main prose of the article. The parameters available in the infobox are, I believe, adequate. The table of toll rates was also removed because of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically that "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." I took this to include toll rate tables as they are also updated relatively often and would quickly fall out-of-date. The remainder of those edits consisted of updating the road junction list to use a template (that complies with MOS:RJL), cutting down on overlinking in the 'see also' section, and other minor cleanup tasks. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, @Pizza1016:. I agree with the toll rates, though think the bridge specs are useful as other bridges have similar info. Secondly, some of the photos, such as the one on the bridge roadway is useful to show what a bridge user would see. I can restore them but thought I should run it by you and other editors first. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmglee: Yeah I agree that the bridge specs could be useful, but the way it was listed at the time just felt out of place to me. I think the specs should be explained/described in prose format, rather than a plain list, and given some context (but you and other editors might disagree). Some of the stats, in any case, looks like they could be added to the bridge infobox. Also I completely missed that I removed the photos - sorry about that! I've restored them back into the article (feel free to relocate them if you wish). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizza1016: Thanks very much. I'll write out the specs in prose when I can find some time and motivation. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added to Penang_Bridge#Features. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article requires major rework

[edit]

With the Penang bridge as such an iconic icon for Penang, the article is in desperate need of a major rework. I'm not really a good writer so someone else can take over this job though I might be able to help a bit. Here's some references and points that can be included as a starting point:

General

[edit]
[edit]

Transmission Tower

[edit]

Notable info to include:

  • The previous power transmission through Penang Bridge
  • Increasing supply and incident of fire breaking out on February 2021: Yahoo Kini Bernama FMT ...and more

Sources:

  • Announcement: [7]
  • To boost economy: [8]
  • News excerpt: [9]
  • Going to completion: [10]
  • Illumination on tower: [11] [12]
  • Opinion piece and illumination info: [13]
  • Police warn of not stopping to take photo: [14]
  • Public concern during construction (source might be unreliable): [15]
  • Fully operational: [16][17]

Do note that there could be more potential news articles in Malay and other languages that can be included. There are definitely more topics that have not been covered so feel free to add more here if you like. Syn73 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • NST175: Rise of the iconic Penang Bridge: [18]
  • Penang’s Bridges Are Passages to Another World: [19]
  • Personal blog: [20]
  • Official website info (archived): [21]

News covering the history need to be found from old newspaper excerpt which there are a few in the current main article. Syn73 (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main span photo

[edit]

Revirvlkodlaku, before you go on accusing me of WP:EW, please explain your concerns regarding the newer photo? What was being reverted with this recent addition?

As far as the older photo is concerned, it is much smaller in resolution, and it does not reflect the developments surrounding the bridge in the years since. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@hundenvonPG, so even though you are edit warring, you would prefer that I not mention it, is that correct?
I did explain my concerns, but let me do so once more: the image you are introducing is less clear than the older one, and it's not clear to me how it better represents the bridge to most readers. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding a newer photo count as WP:EW? Please enlighten me how was that considered EW?
Shocked with what you did. To say the least. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@hundenvonPG, you seem to shock a little too easily. All I "did" was revert your edit. Is that a shocking thing to do? Let's discuss this constructively: do you have a strong reason to prefer the newer image? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, what we need is a clear (and updated) middle span view of the bridge which has the iconic look such as [22] [23] [24] and maybe a night view of the monopole [25]. I think the middle span image composition is alright (maybe with some cropping it could be put on infobox) but it looks way too dim and hazy. The current infobox image need to be replaced as well since there aren't any distinct Penang Bridge features in the image as compared to the others I listed above. But I believe it could be used to show the monopole. @HundenvonPenang: I really appreciate your photo contribution on many landmarks (and please continue to do so!) but I don't think it is suitable in this case. Syn73 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road deck photo

[edit]

Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs) reverted my restoration of File:Penang_Bridge_main_span_taxi.jpg with the comment 

I disagree that this is necessary; image placement does a disservice to the rest of the article, so perhaps create a gallery or place it somewhere more appropriate.

@Revirvlkodlaku: could you clarify what you meant by "somewhere more appropriate"?

I feel that having a photograph showing the view a typical motorist sees adds more to the article, and complements the aerial view and view from afar.

May I have a second opinion on this? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 14:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @cmglee, I don't completely disagree with you about the value of the image itself, but the placement just seems off to me. Anyway, upon reflection, I've decided to restore your edit. Btw, what you were requesting was a third opinion, not a second one ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Revirvlkodlaku. I think the List of interchanges section is the most appropriate one as it concerns the route. However, putting it at the top of the section makes the table narrow, or pushes it down, so I decided the bottom the second best option. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough, I think it's not too bad where it is. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road junction list format review

[edit]

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, Im here to explain for my edit that I had updated the junction list that following the MOS:RJL, but you had reverted to the version that the table is still using the old format.

Cc. @Imzadi1979 DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imzadi1979, I haven't reviewd MOS:RJL or your edit yet, but the line break markup was incorrect, which is one of the reasons I reverted this edit. Would you mind restoring the correct markup before we proceed?
Also, is "DiaoBaoHuaJian" one of your usernames? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Revirvlkodlaku, we are not same people. What means for the line break markup? Dis you said the (br or br/)? DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DiaoBaoHuaJian, yes, I'm referring to <br /> versus <br>. <br /> is the correct HTML markup. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi1979, please don't forget to fix the markup you changed unnecessarily, as I've requested and as would be proper, thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: technically <br /> may be more correct for XHTML purposes, however, <br> is equivalent in HTML and acceptable. Please also see H:BR to note that MediaWiki converts <br> to <br /> in the HTML that browsers read, meaning they're already essentially the same.
Changing that coding for the sake of only changing it would be a cosmetic edit, and we're not supposed to make purely cosmetic edits because they clog up other editors' watchlists with unneeded edits. Such editing can be combined with other substantive changes in a future edit to the article. That means there's really nothing any of us need to do at this time.
In the meantime, there are many, many articles with badly formatted junction lists that need to be converted over to the standard formatting required by MOS:RJL. The misuse of colors in tables, the overuse/misuse of graphics without appropriate text accompaniment and other issues mean those tables are meaningless to a global audience, and in most cases, our readers would actually be better served by wholesale deleting them from the articles than retaining them. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi1979, your last point is valid, but why did you change the markup from <br /> to <br> in the first place, giving rise to this needless discussion?Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: I restored the mostly MOS:RJL-compliant junction list table along with some fixes to make it more compliant with the standard. You restored this version which does not comply with MOS:RJL. I got us to this version, which does comply with MOS:RJL, which is the important issue. The version of the markup 1) was there before and 2) doesn't matter per H:BR. You're the one who opened a discussion about a difference in markup that doesn't matter per H:BR. Because it doesn't matter per H:BR, I ask why you're belaboring us with this discussion? Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, but I have to wonder something. According to a quick search of the wiki code for the article, there are 42 instances of <br> and 0 of <br /> throughout the article. Why are we discussing the 2 in the intersection list table? Especially since it doesn't matter which format is in use, because the server will change them in the output sent to readers' browsers?
Now, if you didn't know that per H:BR that the server makes that change, that's fine, but now you do know, so please stop hounding people over this topic. 03:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi1979, I indeed didn't know that the server makes the change. It isn't necessary to use rude terms like "stop hounding people over this topic". If you had replied to me after I tagged you here, we wouldn't be where we are now, so perhaps you can take accountability for your own behaviour. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penang_Bridge&oldid=1351661200"