Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Clifton Suspension Bridge

I recently put Clifton Suspension Bridge up as a candidate for good article status. It failed for a variety of reasons including "There is very little discussion on the process of the bridge's construction." Would anyone from this project be willing/able to take a look and help to improve the article?— Rod talk 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have information on this and could do it, but it won't be for a couple of weeks as I'm away from home all next week and otherwise fairly busy anyway. -- Kvetner 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bridge bearings

We should probably have an article about bridge bearings. I don't think a lot of people realize that bridges have bearings in order to accommodate for expansion and contraction. Another relevant point is that if a bridge bearing fails, it could transfer stresses into the structure. This article from indystar.com says that there was corrosion in the bearings of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge. It's pretty early for us to speculate, and that would be original research anyway, but having an article here would contribute some background knowledge. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Construction and safety of different types of bridges

I posted the following in talk re recent bridge disaster. Above user (thanks!) suggested I could raise the issue here. I'm not an expert on this subject, but have some knowledge and interest (and I'm always impressed when driving under the Clifton Suspension Bridge), and the following is just a suggestion...
"I'd like to see a single, basic article (perhaps there is one?) (or clear links, please) devoted to, or informing casual readers about, different types of bridge construction e.g. suspension, arch-girder, pontoon, cable-stayed (is that same as suspension?). A recent BBC programme in the UK had detailed report on number of wires (detected by sound) that snap almost by the minute within the average large cable of suspension bridge - frightening, fresh, fascinating and authoritative. TV reports (in the UK) had State governor claiming this was a unique construction - I don't want Wiki to get too far into breaking news... but 'we' should have an article clarifying, or links if it's there already, please." - Tony in Devon 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Muscatine High Bridge

Muscatine High Bridge was a Mississippi River bridge at Muscatine, Iowa. It was removed after the Norbert F. Beckey Bridge opened in 1972. I find very little on the net, but it too suffered a collapse in 1956, as this link to the Cities Times shows. To say the least, an article on this bridge is definitely wanted. --Ace Telephone 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An article is definitely warranted, but it may be a stub for a long time until offline references are consulted, cited and included in Wikipedia. :-) —Rob (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Combination article or separate articles?

There is currently a medium-length article on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, most of which is devoted to its demise. Plans are underway to quickly (16 months) replace the bridge with a new bridge. Undoubtably, there will be pictures of the construction and paragraphs about safety features, political considerations, financing, etc. I think it will probably be named after some politician and it will also become a robust article in its own right. I just looked at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, and obviously the article attempts to cover both topics - the failed bridge and the modern one in the same location. Would it not make sense to have separate articles for the distinct structures that happen to occupy the same real estate at different times? For example Quest Field resides where the Kingdome was before it was razed.--Appraiser 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article naming standards

Does the Project have an naming standard for articles? The reason for the question is based on that some articles names ends with a fixed link suffix and other end with a Bridge suffix, e.g.Great Belt Fixed Link and Fehmarn Belt bridge. Is the suffix Fixed Link only used when it is a combination of tunnels and bridges? This is just my thoughts, any reply is welcome.
Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Pulaski Skyway

I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. --NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My article was proposed for deletion!

I'm adding articles for the List of crossings of the Connecticut River and someone suggested deleting one! What can I do? The article is General Pierce Bridge, the nominator is Nuttah68, and I've already tried to defend my article. Meanwhile, I've added more related articles and I've got several more pending, but with this proposed deletion, I don't know what to do. Help? Denimadept 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes deletion proposals are rejected. Some of them are even done by vandals. If the proposer did not leave a message on your personal user talk page, you have nothing to worry about: the proposal was done by a vandal or someone with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia protocol (I'm beginning to learn). If he did, just follow the advice given there.
I can see that your request for help is more than a month old, and your page is still there. So the deletion proposal has been rejected. Blanchardb 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As I was saying... the article Saarland has just been marked for deletion as patent nonsense Blanchardb 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disaster or Demolished?

In the article Bedell Covered Bridge, I've placed both the Bridge Disasters and the Demolished Bridges categories, being unsure which is more appropriate for this structure. The bridge was, in all cases, wiped out by a natural event, so I'm leaning toward Disasters, but that seems to over-state the situation. As far as I've been able to find out, no one was ever hurt, let alone killed, in these events, yet the bridge is gone. Another way to put it is that the bridge didn't collapse due to some artificial failure: no design flaw, no implementation or inspection trouble, yet the natural world destroyed it every time they rebuilt it. So which category makes more sense? - Denimadept 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that it was not rebuilt after the 1979 disaster, and, given that, looking at a map of the area, there are enough alternate routes to make reconstruction unnecessary from a strictly transportation management standpoint, I would tend to go with Demolished Bridges. Had it been rebuilt for any reason other than heritage preservation, it would have been another story. Blanchardb 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ARCH BRIDGES ?

Some of the arches that appear in the list by length are NOT ACTUALLY ARCHES. They are splendid examples of ARCH-SHAPED TRUSS (as is clearly explained in the article "truss arch bridge" in the Wikipedia). For example: Delaware turnpike toll bridge, Bridge of Las Americas, Laviolette bridge, Julien Dubuque bridge, Bob Cummings Trail Bridge, Sagamore Bridge, Banghwa bridge, All of this should be remove from the list of arches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis martin-tereso (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks-coord Issues

Some bridge articles use Geolinks to point at map services. The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues. I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps. (SEWilco 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Infobox template code update

Greetings! I found myself monitoring Covered bridge some time back, and today looked at the code for {{BridgeTypePix}}. I realized it was using nonstandard infobox code and wrote an update (currently at User:Huntster/Sandbox/2, plus new documentation) but thought I'd write a blurb here to see if there was any opposition. Also, I would like to rename to {{Infobox Bridge type}} rather than retain its current nonstandard name. To maintain appearances, I'd also like to rewrite the {{Infobox Bridge}} code and documentation as well. Go or no go? -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Geoboxes for bridges

The makers of the Geobox have been designing a geobox to use on bridge articles. The sample is located here. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Thanks! Skeetidot 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. The problem is finding the appropriate information to fill it in for every bridge. Maybe that's something to add to the to do list of the project. --Blanchardb 11:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You only fill in the information you know. The National Bridge Inventory lists nearly all of this information, and for the example I had, I took some info from pghbridges.com, but the geobox can hold as little or as much info as you have. Skeetidot 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. Still, it is work that needs to be done (even with templates currently used), but someone's gotta do it.
So, what are we waiting for? --Blanchardb 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Are we to start using this template instead of the existing bridge template? - Denimadept 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's a thought for that Geobox: please incorporate the NHRP attributes so we can avoid having two info boxes, as in Bedell Covered Bridge and Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge. - Denimadept 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Or should there be a mini-NRHP box for pages which already have detailed infoboxes? (SEWilco 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I think a mini-NRHP infobox would be a good idea. There's a fair amount of information included in {{Infobox nrhp}} that's already in {{Infobox bridge}} or the geobox example. Information specific from the NRHP infobox includes its type (National Historic Landmark, historic district contributing property, or just a standalone NRHP property), date added to the National Register of Historic Places, any listing within a Multiple Property Submission, the NRHP reference number, and the name of the architect(s). There are some other NRHP property types (like lighthouses and ships) that could also benefit from a combined infobox. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the existing NRHP infobox collapse when stuff is not given? Or could there be an optional "brief" flag which would trigger a collapsed version (with a [details] toggle), so it would just emit a small brick to fit under the main infobox? (SEWilco 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
It would also be good if the NHRP people were involved in this effort so that any further changes to their infobox would also get into this new geobox. Alternatively, could the geobox inherit the NHRP box in order to stay up to date? - Denimadept 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The WP:NRHP Talk page has a link to this discussion. I think the NRHP box should be separate from the Geobox because there are many Geobox formats, not all NRHPs have fixed geographic locations (such as ships), and NRHP info needs are separate from the many kinds of objects which are NRHPs. The NRHP box appeared before these more specialized infoboxes, and many of these specialized pages are likely to have info which duplicates the NRHP info such as dates, locations, or photos. (SEWilco 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
General comment: Please yes, integrate infoboxes. Anything that gets rid of the two infoboxes per page phenomenon. Train stations, lighthouses, ships, bridges. Two infoboxes? What are we, USA Today? IvoShandor 16:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Alloa Swing Bridge

Alloa Swing Bridge (via WP:PROD) a former railway bridge across the River Forth in Scotland

I'm finding it difficult to find the location of this bridge. Both Yahoo and Google Maps have poor map imagry in that area. But delete a bridge??? Not on your life! The article needs polishing, no lie, but not deletion. - Denimadept 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal

We need a portal for bridges. What should it contain? Blanchardb 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I checked the Wikipedia:Portal page, and basically, we need a main article (that would be Bridge), a featured article (yes, we have a few of those) changed every month or so, a featured picture (we got plenty of those).

We also need links to other portals (suggestions, please!) and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges.

So, when do we get started? --Blanchardb 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard you volunteered. Congratulations. :-D - Denimadept 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Got it started. Still listed as "under construction". Sections without content have been commented out for the time being. :-) --Blanchardb 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The portal is up and running now, but it still needs attention. We need a Featured Article (or at the very least a Good Article) to put on the portal for December. We also need to feature a picture and a bio. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We also need an admin to add {{portal|Bridges}} to {{WikiProject Bridges article}}. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Temptation

I'm tempted to add a WikiBridges infobox template to Bifröst. What do y'all think? I figure the overall length and mainspan length would be "indeterminate". "Crosses", I'm a bit unclear on, location would be "everywhere"... - Denimadept 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd avoid adding the infobox to mythological or fictional items unless the parameters were much more clearly defined. In this case, I think it would be a case of adding the Infobox simply for the sake of adding it. It would really add no value to the article itself, which is the primary justification for infobox use. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the infobox should be reserved for actual bridges, not metaphorical ones. Cacophony 07:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)