Talk:Interstate 470 Bridge

Merger

The following discussion 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.

---

I came here from the FAC, and since this isn't directly related to the article, I thought I'd bring up the merge discussion here. There is plenty of redundant information:

"Construction on the tied-arch bridge began in 1975, and was scheduled to be completed by 1981. Construction was not completed on time due to the Ohio Department of Transportation's delays on Ohio State Route 7 along the western shores of the river."

As well as

"The opening of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge, along with another bridge in nearby Moundsville was thought to have reduced the amount of traffic, and thus tolls collected by the nearby Bellaire Bridge by up to 50 per-cent in 1987"

The main piece of leftover information is the cost of the span. It doesn't even have the opening date for the bridge! Given how short the bridge article is, I propose it be merged into the main article here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose granted the article on the bridge needs more work, but that's no reason to merge it into this article. This is not something that is done normally. --AdmrBoltz 19:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mergers are regularly done in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, especially for small articles. My main point is that there probably isn't a good opportunity for expansion, since most of the information is already in this article. I don't think it would be terribly problematic. After all, the bridge is Interstate 470. Since the interstate is only 10 miles along, the bridge is one of the main focal points (from my reading, the primary reason it wasn't finished on time). It'd probably only merge in a sentence or two to this article, given what I've said. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That would work I suppose. The bridge would need to be delinked from the junction list as well. --AdmrBoltz 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It isn't linked from many articles (mostly just crossings of the Ohio river and a few dabs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose—let this article be separate. There is plenty of room for expansion. For instance, none of the design characteristics in the infobox are presently listed in the article; a "design" section would be appropriate for that. Additional history about the bridge would also be appropriate in the article. For example, the article says that this was "a bridge to nowhere", but it never mentions when the Ohio segment of I-470 was completed, a detail which obsoleted that moniker. These and other details would make a well-rounded article and would negate any desire to merge it away into the I-470 article. However, merging it now would like preclude any such expansion since what's here would be summarized and condensed in any merger to avoid undue weight. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Then there could be a little bridge section with the bridge information, like Interstate 195 (Florida) or Interstate 140 (North Carolina). Why have two articles that are both tiny and underdeveloped, when you could have one to carry it all? The main I-470 article is only 24.5 kb. That's very short, and could easily handle the additional information. Most of that additional information (detail about when the Ohio segment was completed, for example), should be in the main article! I don't think it would be undue weight - the interstate itself is only 10 miles long, and since the bridge is one of the main features (along with it going through Wheeling), then the information is certainly valid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Common usage has been to have other major bridges get their own articles, not to fold them in to the routes they carry when the route extends beyond the bridge. I don't see a good reason to deviate from that here. Bitmapped (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is a 1,300 foot bridge that major? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, given the opposition, I'll withdraw the proposal. I just thought that such a short article could easily be merged with little effects, especially since it'd help reduce the WW. But, I'm not a roadgeek, so I'll defer :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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.