Talk:Fairbairn steam crane

Split article?

Suggestion on my talk, from Aldux (talk)

would (I) object to splitting the article, so that a specific article can be dedicated to the Bristol crane, that certainly deserves a stand-alone status due to its recognized importance and so that the article is not unbalanced, and permitting the article to be on Fairbairn steam cranes in general.

I've no strong feelings either way, but I'm vaguely against a split.

Firstly, I don't think the Bristol crane needs an article of its own. It deserves one, it's adequately notable to all our policies, but that's different. It's notable because it's an exemplar of a broader group (Fairbairn cranes) that are important, also as the last survivor. I wrote this stuff about Bristol because it's really about the cranes, secondly it's the survivor, thirdly (and mostly) because I'm in Bristol and placed to do it (I won't be doing Finnieston). On the whole though, I don't think notable narrow topics need Wikipedia coverage, they can look after themselves. This is a generalist encyclopedia, not a David & Charles monograph on the Bristol crane alone. Anoraks buy those sort of books (you should see my house), encyclopedia readers don't need to know the rolling mill that made the boiler plates.

Secondly, I don't think there are yet sufficient media assets to do justice to the Fairbairn crane in general. As I wrote this article I was fascinated (takes a lot to fascinate me these days) on the enormous importance of this crane design to civil engineering. It's not just "an old steam crane", it's not even (as I first thought) the clever geometry that uses a semi-circular jib to reach over gunwhales. The importance of these beasties was in Fairbairn's staggering insight into the theoretical modelling of box girders, collapse theory by crumpling, and the use of a cellular girder in the inner face of the jib. Until I read Fairbairn's own lecture notes (cited) 'd never realised this stuff. Now that cellular girder diagram really does need to be added (in my copious free time, when I've sketched it)

So overall, I see this Bristol crane as an illustrative example of the genre, and if anything we should expand this article and make it better illustrate the general theory and it's importance. I see no benefit from a split.

Finally, they aren't Fairbairn steam cranes (I got the name wrong, through initial ignorance) they're Fairbairn cranes. The first, and most significant, examples were manually cranked. Their importance is in the design of that job, not the engine.

As noted, I'm against this split — but address these points and I could be swayed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously the expert here, so if you feel it this way, I'm OK with the current situation. But since you raised the issue of the title and you're of the opinion that it's uncorrect, maybe it should be renamed in the way you proposed.--Aldux (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let my comments stop you splitting it, if you think it's viable. Really though I think it needs extra image assets before it would work. Find some old Commons-acceptable prints of the early dockyard cranes and sections of the girder and it might fly? Otherwise though I think the risk is that the Bristol article uses the Bristol photos, then the general article uses the exact same set of photos, because that's what we have to work with. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)