Talk:Bixby Bridge

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

On 10 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Bixby Creek Bridge to Bixby Bridge. The result of the discussion was moved.

Importance

stems from:

Historic nature
High visibility and scenic tourist area
Rediscovery site of california sea otter, thought to be extinct by 1929
Extensive iconic photographic use for california coast.

Anlace 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is its height over ground/water?

Might look rather tempting to someone's inner base-jumper. knoodelhed 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCfC

Death Cab for Cutie named their new song "Bixby Canyon Bridge" after this song. -65.12.134.148 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bixby Creek Bridge article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name issue

The source for my change in text from Bixby Creek Bridge to Bixby Bridge is the fact that, although numerous other bridges along Highway 1 have "creek" in them, such as Rocky Creek Bridge, Bixby Bridge does not. The state historic bridge market says: Bixby Bridge 1932. Other bridges have "creek" in them, in some cases. My proof is the photo I took, which is available on Panoramio at this link: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/47578829.jpg

If that is not sufficient to change the name, then I'll change the text back to Bixby Creek Bridge, although I believe that to be incorrect.

Thank you for your consideration. GlennTSimmons (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to check a few references before I move it. If you want to move it, that's your call. This bridge is included in the Jackson book, as well as ... I just checked the California state website, and I'm seeing it both ways. I suggest we have it as "aka" in the article. - Denimadept (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Bixby Bridge already redirects here. - Denimadept (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve argued in favor of restoring the original, more commonly used name, as the title in the RM below. —-В²C ☎ 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Height vs clearance

Height is 280 ft. Clearance below is 260 ft? Is height the height above sea level? What is the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.202.93 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearance" (Vertical clearance) is amount of room above the deck for traffic.

Some bridges have limits on this; this one doesn't. "Clearance below" is space below the bridge to the ground. "Height" is the level of the deck above the ground. The difference of 20 feet (6.1 m) between "below" and "height" for this bridge implies the distance between the top of the arch to the deck is 20 feet (6.1 m). - Denimadept (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Addition to "In popular culture"

"Bixby Canyon Bridge" is also the name of a song by Death Cab for Cutie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.158.164 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like anything to do with the bridge. Sounds like something to do with a song. - Denimadept (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 26, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The

Bixby Creek Bridge is a reinforced concrete open-spandrel arch bridge in Big Sur, California. Prior to its opening in 1932, local residents were virtually cut off during winter as the old coast road, running as far as 11 miles (18 km) inland, was often impassable. At its completion, the bridge was, at 320 feet (98 m), the longest concrete arch span on the California State Highway System. It is one of the tallest single-span concrete bridges in the world.Photograph: David Iliff

Archive – More featured pictures...

The old road was often impassable in winter?

Due to what? What blocked the road for much of the winter? Jim Michael (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As California State Route 1 notes, "frequent landslides and erosion along the coast have caused several segments to be either closed for lengthy periods for repairs, or re-routed inland". So the answer is "landslides" - the terrain is steep and the ground rather frangible, so the wet winter weather makes it prone to slippage. But we should have a specific reference that confirms that's the case for this section, which we don't have yet. 87.112.169.204 (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Bixby Creek Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ

for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130205081233/https://store.usps.com/store/browse/uspsProductDetailMultiSkuDropDown.jsp?productId=S_114540&categoryId=subcatS_S_PriorityExpressAirMail to https://store.usps.com/store/browse/uspsProductDetailMultiSkuDropDown.jsp?productId=S_114540&categoryId=subcatS_S_PriorityExpressAirMail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Base Jumping

Given that this is a popular BASE jumping site, especially considering the notoriety of Steven Jester's BASE jump, I would have thought there would be more discussion of BASE jumping, rather than simply 2 fatalities which received far less press and attention than Jester's jump (that instance has just less than 2.4M views). Titaniumlegs (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 12:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICIAL. Although the bridge is referenced in reliable sources as either Bixby Bridge or Bixby Creek Bridge, ngrams and news source searches favor the more CONCISE name, it’s most commonly referred to with the shorter name which has been on the sign on the bridge since 1932 which anyone can verify with Google Maps street view. I’ve never heard a local call it by the long name, only the short name, and I have connections there. This article was correctly created at Bixby Bridge but was then moved a few years later without discussion, much less an RM, in 2007[1], justified only by a comment claiming the longer name is its “proper name”, which is not a good reason to move even if valid, per COMMONNAME and OFFICIAL. There is no ambiguity issue either; Bixby Bridge remains a PRIMARYREDIRECT to here. — В²C ☎ 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Even the state of California is unsure what to call the bridge.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those is from the state of California, meaning the state government. In any case, countless citations for both names can be found. It would be a toss-up for us, except CONCISION, ngrams, and the fact that this article was moved to the current title without valid justification, all favor Bixby Bridge. It’s also likely there is some (inadvertent) tail wagging effect here: by having this article at the current title that has probably affected usage outside of WP. —В²C ☎ 01:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ. All three links are to CalTrans sources. The third is a press release on a news site. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really but it’s moot since I’ve conceded from the outset that both names are commonly used in reliable sources, and any official sources like from Caltrans carry less weight per OFFICIAL. So you can find sources for both. So what? The proposed name is more CONCISE and preferred per ngrams. Besides, it’s entirely possible sources are being influenced by the title of this article and making the longer one more popular. —В²C ☎ 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per CONCISE which is enough for me, all else being equal here. Good call, B2C. Red Slash 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.