Talk:Gateway Arch National Park

Security Measures

I seen the Arch in December of 2004. Since this was my first time back to the Arch visitor center since 2000, several security changes had been made. It used to be that people would only be screened if they took the tram, now everyone is screened before entering the visitor center. jessica was here I did want to make people aware of this, because the design of the visitor's center and the placement of the metal detectors will mean that people will have to stand outside in all sorts of weather - it does take time to process visitors. Especially those who are more vulnerable health-wise should be aware of this.

JesseG 03:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

The article says, "Its legs are equilateral triangles". I don't know what that means, and I don't even see how that could be meaningful. Can anyone clarify, or should I remove it?

James barton 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could it have meant the cross-sections of its legs? Michael Hardy 20:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the pictures, it seems likely that cross-sections are what was intended. I've edited the article accordingly. Michael Hardy 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusingly stated equations

The article said:

this set of parametric equations:

$Y=A\left(\cosh {\frac {X}{L}}C-1\right)$

$X={\frac {L}{C}}\left[\cosh ^{-1}\left(1+{\frac {Y}{A}}\right)\right]$

Calling it a "set of parametric equations" leads one to expect that it expresses both X and Y as functions of some parameter -- the same parameter for both. Having read that, one immediately sees:

$Y=\cdots \,$

$X=\cdots ,\,$

and that's just what you expect when you read the words "set of parametric equations", and you expect to see, to the right of "=", expressions of X and Y in terms of some paramater independent of both. Then you actually read what they say, and that's not it at all.

Hence my recent edit. Michael Hardy 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidents of flights through the Arch

According to http://www.nps.gov/jeff/adhi%20Folder/adhi2-13.htm , there have been no less than eleven incidents of aircraft having been flown under the arch, not four as stated in the article.

Leebert 02:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The count of four came from the arch timeline on the P-D website. The NPS page's footnotes thoroughly document the eleven, so I've updated the page, and added the bit about the aborted attempt to scale it. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the text to "No less than 11 aircraft" from "As many as". Perhaps a quibble, but the referenced article itself says that there were 11 confirmed flythroughs, which would set a lower boundry, not an upper boundry. Leebert 19:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Website Copying

The website http://www.squidoo.com/stlouisarch/ (found in a Google search) seems to have copied the Wikipedia article but there is no mention of the GNU Free Documenation license on the website. --Mosquitopsu 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Catenary and Jefferson

Shouldn't mention be made of the coincidence (or not coincidence) that the arch is a catenary, and that Thomas Jefferson coined the term 'catenary'?

Raw Facts?

I think it should mention exactly how long it took to make the Arch, the amount of materials in weight or quantity, and exactly what was built along with it.

I believe I read that actuaries had predicted that about 10 workers would perish during construction, but not a one was lost. Perhaps this fact can be found in citable form. weetbixkid 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

How many images are sufficient? Rklawton 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much quantity as placement, imho. In most articles I've seen, picture galleries are near the bottom of the article, just above or below the external links. It'd be really good if they were on Wikicommons instead, too, so one could then use {{commons}} or {{commonscat}}. Plus they could be categorized more specifically. See what I mean:

-Ebyabe 12:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

i have been to the gate way arch and it is great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.187 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged, changed, and threw out a lot of pictures. Most likely have stepped on numerous toes here, and I'm sorry for that, but it seems that people just kept adding snapshots. JNEM is a popular tourist destination, so many people have pictures. Unfortunately a whole lot of them were either redundant, of very low resolution, blurry/shaky, or rather off-topic. I think picturewise the article now is in a pretty good state. If anyone feels the need to add pictures, ask yourself whether the truely add value to the article, and whether their technical quality compares to the current pictures. Also check out WP:NOT (the Wikipedia is not a gallery section). --Dschwen 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanning the river

Is it really a common misconception that the Arch spans the Mississippi? I have yet to meet anyone who thought that.

I thought it did when I was a kid. Rklawton 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that, but my brother thought the the bridge for I-70 that went over the Mississippi river was "driving on top of the arch" when he was about 5 years old. Madlobster (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back when I was in school in the 1970's, that was what we were taught. A single look at any picture that shows the arch and ground quickly corrected that erroneous instruction.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral vs. Basilica

It is a basilica with the official title of Basilica of St. Louis, King of France but it is never called "the Old Basilica". The colloqial name that everyone in town refers to it by is "The Old Cathederal", and that never changed when it was designated a basilica. No one ever says, "I'll meet you in front of the Old Basilica". (I accidentally hit enter before I fully entered the gist of this on the edit summary.) Indeed, it would be nonsense to call it the Old Basilica. The word "old" is used in this context in the sense of "former", and it is a former cathederal -- once held the Bishop's official cathedra -- but it is currently, not formerly, a basilica. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whuh?PvtDeth (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Closed during 9/11, but for how long?

{{edit by IP sock of banned user removed}}

This is just a bit of trivia. All sorts of monuments and sites were closed at that time. It could be mentioned on the 9/11 page, but not on every single monument page. --Dschwen 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not exactly unique or notable in the longterm. Dayewalker (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of units

Do you really think that Eero and Hannskarl put their heads together and decided that 194.024 meters would be the ideal height and width of this monument, and then Hannskarl broke out the ol' slide rule and said, "What do you know! That's exactly 630 feet." No, they designed it to be 630 feet tall and 630 feet wide. That, plus the fact that feet are the native units where this is located argue for feet and acres to be the primary units used in the article. And style dictates that one set of units be applied consistently throught the article, whichever system is chosen. I've made it so. --Kbh3^rdtalk 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Courthouse on "To Do List" above

Is it necessary to talk about its cultural significance here, since it has its own article on Wikipedia? RM2KX (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard. Subtopic is appropriate. RM2KX (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I am cleaning up the external links following the Wikipedia guideline, and I have removed these four, for the reasons named:

• Arch documentary – PROMOTIONAL: Llinks to photos and info, but primarily wants you to purchase a documentary film.
• Tourism – PROMOTIONAL: Tourism website, linking to many ticket-sellers
• JNPA – PROMOTIONAL: Links to retail and donation requests
• Darwin Award – NOT FACTUAL: Date given is questioned in the article, and how would we know the account of an event by someone who died during it?

Please recommend re-inclusion if you feel differently about any of them, and let's discuss it here. RM2KX (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080407233919/http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/landmarks.htm to http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/landmarks.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stlcin.missouri.org/release/getpressdetails.cfm?Auto=1220

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).

• 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) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080131214652/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/10DA9EE598C17FAD86257345007A63F0?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/10DA9EE598C17FAD86257345007A63F0?OpenDocument

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).

• 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) 07:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Only interrupted by the Civil Courts Building?

From the article: "To the west of the Old Courthouse is a Greenway between Market and Chestnut Streets which is only interrupted by the Civil Courts Building". Looking at the Greenway at Google maps it is clear that before the Civil Courts Building there is another big building: Peabody Plaza. אביהו (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site

While the Arch may be accurately called the 'Gateway Arch', the Park is not the Gateway Arch National Park. It is designated by Congressional Legislation at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site. Do we want to let 'common' naming become the standard where there is a 'official' name that can be identified. Like the natural worlds Linnaean taxonomy, common names from around the world have a single 'world' standard. While places may not, there are 'official' or at least preferential names based on public documents from various government or standards agencies. For the United States, there is the United States Board on Geographic Names, for Historic Sites, there are State Historic Registers and nationally, the National Register of Historic Places.

Thus, the NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM (June 4, 1976) clearly call the park and the historic places as the Jefferson Nat'l Expansion Mem. The property consists of 3 historic components:

1. Old St. Louis County Courthouse
2. Gateway Arch
3. Old Cathedral

Thus, the commons categories of Gateway Arch, Basilica of St. Louis, King of France and Basilica of St. Louis, King of France are appropriate or at least reasonable as sub-categories and the Museum of Westward Expansion fits as it's a significant location/topic within the Gateway Arch complex. The over all listing should (in my opinion) be Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site.

Redirects can be created to move public searches for Gateway Arch to Jefferson National Expansions Memorial National Historic Site. #REDIRECT [[name of the target page]] --Chris Light (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was unaware until today of the re-naming. But this article doesn't help me learn why it was re-named. does it have to do with Jefferson having slaves, or what? 213.109.221.236 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

2018

I'm assuming this isn't listed in the "Protected Areas Established in 2018" because it was Donald Trump who authorized it, which would mean admitting that this orange monster did something GOOD for once, right? I'd like to see that in this category (because the more new national parks, the better) but that would mean saying something nice about Trump. Should this be in that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.107.165 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

--No, it's because the protected area was established in 1935. The area was merely redesignated as part of the Missouri Congressional Delegation pork-barreling it into the budget resolution. Trump approved the CR to keep the government funded. The protected area remained the same in scope, and Trump himself only nominally had anything to do with the redesignation. The same is true of Indiana Dunes, while New River Gorge was pork-barreled onto the COVID relief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.197.246 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarity

"The Gateway Arch and its immediate surroundings were initially designated as a national memorial by executive order on December 21, 1935, and redesignated as a national park in 2018." -- This is misleading at best. The arch did not physically exist in 1935. Someone quickly reading this is likely to come away thinking the contrary and wind up crediting Wikipedia with false information. 213.109.221.236 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've clarified the wording to make it clear that the Gateway Arch was completed in 1965. -- RobLa (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)