Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

• Here's a good picture from HABS/HAER: HAER CONN,6-COLCH,4-12 --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:23, 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-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We also need an admin to add {{portal|Bridges}} to {{WikiProject Bridges article}}. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-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)

Mystery historical Mississippi bridges

I encountered some 1890s photos of Mississippi River bridges. All I have is the photos and captions, so I mention them in case someone currently knows more details. I added the photos to the articles for the bridges which seem to be at the same location. The names of those articles follow. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stone Arch Bridge Minneapolis, Minnesota (shows Stone Arch Bridge behind unidentified bridge)
• Hastings Rail Bridge Minnesota/Wisconsin
• Main Channel Bridge (Winona) Minnesota/Wisconsin
• Mississippi River Bridge Minnesota/Wisconsin
• Pile-Pontoon Railroad Bridge (stub created from link in List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River; needs infobox?) Iowa/Illinois
• Lyons-Fulton Bridge Iowa/Illinois
• Keithsburg Rail Bridge Iowa/Illinois
• Burlington Rail Bridge Iowa/Illinois -- SEWilco (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• High Bridge (St. Paul) (first bridge which was already mentioned in article) -- SEWilco (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The one below the Stone Arch Bridge looks like the old 10th Avenue Bridge. This was the one that carried 10th Avenue South across the river to 6th Avenue Southeast, and is not to be confused with the current 10th Avenue Bridge (which connects Cedar Avenue to 10th Avenue Southeast). This page at the Minneapolis Riverfront Bridges site gives some history. It was also known as the Lower Bridge, and was demolished in 1943. There's still a pier in the river that's visible from the Stone Arch Bridge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So that's the origin of the lonesome pier in Image:I-35W steel in Mississippi 20070801.JPG. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Blenheim Bridge covered bridge infobox and writing

Its article needs development, can anyone here help? The Old Blenheim Bridge has perhaps the longest span of any covered bridge in the U.S., and is a National Historic Landmark in New York State. I and others are trying to get all List of National Historic Landmarks in New York up to Featured List quality, but no one involved otherwise knows/writes about bridges. Bridge infobox set up but mostly empty. Sources identified and linked to article. Thanks for considering... doncram (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge for the longest. - Denimadept (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is that 232 feet (71 m) in a single span, or in multiple spans? - Denimadept (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a single span bridge, 232 total feet long, with a single span of 210 feet or so (various measurements disagree). Bridge infobox development from the article's several technical sources would be helpful. Thanks for the pointer to the Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge, I've added that as a "See Also" to the article. doncram (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the CW bridge has a larger total length, but not a larger single span length. Fair enough. - Denimadept (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization: Is it really necessary to include articles in subcats as well?

Why is it necessary for bridge articles to be located in parent & child cats simultaneously? Why should a toll bridge in New York City have to contain all the following cats:

• toll bridge in New York City
• bridge in New York City
• toll bridge in New York
• bridge in New York

It seems that an article for a toll bridge in NYC should be located in one cat and that the cat hierarchy should look like this:

• article (toll bridge X in NYC)
  • category: toll bridges in NYC
    • toll bridges in NY
      • bridges in NY
        • bridges in USA
      • toll bridges in USA
        • bridges in USA
    • bridges in NYC
      • bridges in NY
        • bridges in USA

On each end is one article and one category, with branch paths in between. Gjs238 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been through that and it doesn't make sense. Category:Toll Bridges in the United States and Category:Bridges in New York are both subcategories of Category:Bridges in the United States - so what? It's perfectly fine for the heirachy to flow that way. Articles about toll bridges in NYC can be placed in one cat, Category:Toll Bridges in New York City, and the Wikipedia categorization process will function properly. Gjs238 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can describe this another way... If one were looking at Category:Bridges in the United States searching for the proper place to locate an article about a toll bridge in NYC, three routes would become apparant - but all terminating at the same subcategory, Category:Toll Bridges in New York City:

1) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Bridges in New York > Category:Bridges in New York City > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.

2) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.

3) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Toll Bridges in the United States > Category:Toll Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.

Gjs238 (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the root issue. About two years ago Sam added the ALLINCLUDED template to several Bridges in XX state pages, including Bridges in New York. This template says

For convenience, all bridges in New York State should be included in this category. This includes all the bridges that can also be found in the subcategories.

If this is accepted as meeting the criteria for duplication per WP:SUBCAT, then a toll bridge like the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and the George Washington Bridge would need to be listed in both the parent and child catgories. I do not believe duplication is the correct thing to do and this is what we should discuss. - SCgatorFan (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you think categories are intended for. I don't believe they are for creating a strict hierarchy of articles, I think they are for grouping together like articles. If you use categories to browse articles (which I frequently do), then it helps to have all the toll bridges in New York viewable in that category. It shouldn't matter if the same article is in New York and New York City. If I go to Category:Bridges in New York I want to see all the bridges in New York, not a bunch of subcategories. Cacophony (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think large categories should be broken up into subcategories, so that a category never runs into several pages. If I'm browsing a category, I don't want to see 1000 entries in alphabetical order; I'd rather see 25 sub-categories with 40 entries each. This helps me find what I'm looking for, without being overwhelmed with data.--Appraiser (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I do agree that categories with hundreds or thousands of articles should be split up accordingly, but Category:Bridges in New York has maybe 50 articles. I'd say it is the ideal size for a category and there is no reason to break it down further unless you are trying to enforce a hierarchy. The size of the categories was certainly a large factor in our decision to categorize the bridges in the U.S. by state. Bridges in NY is one of the largest of these and I don't see a need to subdivide it. Cacophony (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fifty in a category is fine; do all the notable bridge in NY have articles already?--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I just noticed that {{Infobox religious building}} has a parameter for putting in National Register of Historic Places info. This would be great if the bridge infobox could do the same, so that we don't have multiple infoboxes in an article, or missing relevant info. Murderbike (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Geoboxes for Bridges, above. - Denimadept (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bridge question

Does it make sense for a bridge to be described as a "reinforced-concrete through truss bridge"? Not being a bridge guy, I couldn't really figure out what this meant specifically. Murderbike (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This would describe a bridge which is (a) made of reinforced concrete, (b) a truss bridge, and (c) is a through-truss, which means that the roadway sits in between the two trusses and that there are overhead connections between the trusses. Reinforced concrete trusses are uncommon, and you'd be very unlikely to see one built today. -- Kvetner (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where'd you see this, Murderbike? - Denimadept (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the McMillin Bridge, which I should have an article for pretty soon. It's right here. Murderbike (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and thanks for the clarification! Murderbike (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff! Are you going to handle the former rail/pedestrian bridge next to it also? - Denimadept (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on it. I'm mostly concerned with items on the National Register of Historic Places, and I just got book that's gonna help me do about 10 bridges. So, I probably won't bother with non-NRHP bridges. I'll take a picture of it though when I go out there, in case someone else wants to do the article. Murderbike (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, McMillin Bridge is up. Would someone want to take a look at it, i'm not real confident on the wikilinking of terminology. Murderbike (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on it. Give me a few minutes... - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You did pretty well, given that there's no picture. Really could use a picture, but you know that. - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably get out there next week. One thing, the bridge infobox makes it all look really wonky, and kind of just repeats info that's in the text, without providing anything new. Would anyone care if I removed it? Murderbike (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox is required. We've talked in the past about finding a way to combine the infobox bridge with the infobox NRHP but nothing came of it. - Denimadept (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not gonna complain too much, but I'm curious as to WHAT requires the infobox. Featured Articles don't have to have an infobox, what is it that says a bridge does? Murderbike (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a standard place to put all the regular data. See the article this is a talk-page for. What featured bridge-related articles don't have the infobox? - Denimadept (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't specifying a Featured bridge, just FAs in general. In my experience, they aren't generally required, and sometimes discouraged. Murderbike (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find the infobox useful because I can, in theory, look there for all the regular basic information about a bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the McMillin Bridge article to refer to a half-through truss, which is what it actually is - a through truss has bracing above the roadway. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple photos I took yesterday if those who were curious want to see the bridge. Murderbike (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ponte Romana Sertã?

I just went looking for the article on this bridge. Y'know, the bridge whose image decorates every {{WikiProject Bridges article}} template? That bridge? I couldn't find it! Is there no English version of this article? Is there a non-English version of this article?? - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is hiding under another name, I can find no mention of "Ponte Romana Sertã" amongst any Wikipedia language project. Very curious. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rigolets Pass Bridge

I have added a discussion to this bridge, as there appears to be more than one, thought I'd draw your attention to it here... GrahamHardy (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabrillo Bridge in San Diego

I added the infobox and an 1916 photo to San Diego's Cabrillo Bridge. The description indicates there's now a highway underneath. If someone is near Balboa Park, perhaps a more recent photo and info can be provided. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I located the bridge. Please check my coords. - Denimadept (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Woot. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. For that matter, Balboa Park needs some work. We don't have an article for the Museum of Man? Well, that's off topic for this group, although on topic for someone visiting the bridge. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious what it looks like now, there are (unfree) photos on [1] and its subpages, and free photos at [2] that are suitable for use here. --NE2 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian bridges at AfD

Another editor has nominated several bridges in Slovenia for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Slovenia if you would like to comment on the nominated articles. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people do this AfD thing when an article hasn't had time to get fleshed out. All the articles listed at this time were only created 4 days ago. I'll grant that they should have been created with more information, but I will not grant that they'll never improve. - Denimadept (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just adapted something I wrote on that AfD page to this one. Comments? - Denimadept (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of bridges on the NHRP

I have decided to make a list of bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places. It will have to be split (presumably by state) because otherwise the list is too big. User:NE2/NRHP bridges will be the general format, which I automatically generated from the downloadable database. In addition to obvious formatting issues (which should be pretty easy to fix using AWB), non-bridges/tunnels that happen to include "bridge", "tunnel", or "viaduct" will have to be removed, and those that don't include one of those words will have to be added. I'd also like to add the year the bridge was built if possible, though that will be a lot harder. Does this look like a good idea, and are there any suggestions? (cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) --NE2 10:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be more interested in resolving the "multiple infobox" issue. Making a place where the intersection of "NHRP" and "bridge" is listed isn't bad, though. - Denimadept (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I started List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon as essentially the "test case". --NE2 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like the column of small images. Did you get that idea from the Danube list? - Denimadept (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I got it from List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. --NE2 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Minnesota NHL list got that format from the NY NHL list. :) By the way, i responded to NE2's similar posting to Talk page of WP:NRHP, and was involved in discussing the "test case" at its talk page. There are, I thought, some big open issues, like how the List of NRHP bridges in Oregon should relate to List of bridges in the United States#Oregon and List of tunnels in the United States#Oregon, or if there should better just be List of bridges in Oregon including all the NRHP ones, etc. I was surprised to see NE2's posting below, which was posted also to WP:NRHP. It is impressive, i certainly grant that. doncram (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of bridges on the NRHP are done

All of the links on Template:NRHP bridges are now blue, and the majority of bridges have full information. (Thanks very much to Elkman, who wrote a script to convert UTM to lat/long.) There are a few caveats:

• I started wikifying the "type" column, but stopped after a while because it was taking a long time and I wasn't always sure what the terms meant.
• It may be useful to list what goes over and under the bridge, which I did on the Oregon list.
• It may also be useful to verify and adjust the coordinates; for instance Pittsburgh's Three Sisters are misaligned.
• Most errors in the NRHP data, such as typos, have not been fixed.

--NE2 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bridge

Should this really exist separately from Category:Bridges? --NE2 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Even more odd to me is that "Bridges" is a subcat of "Bridge". These certainly need to be combined into a unified category, probably with "Bridges" being the main one...everything in "Bridge" seems like it could easily be moved elsewhere, either existing or new. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a whole bunch of stuff I'm aware of was moved from Bridges to Bridge yesterday. Where was this discussed? - Denimadept (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This was done by User:Sam, who is also an admin. After a quick review of his contributions, I cannot see any discussion which took place prior to these moves, which makes it even more puzzling why such significant changes were made. If this issue is to be pursued, I'd suggest that someone needs to speak with him regarding these edits, though one would be within their rights to go back and return things to the way they were. Personally, I rather strongly dislike these changes, since they do nothing to clarify things. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now saw this discussion. Yes, I split the category, and did so after discussing the matter at CFD. The discussion was here. What I was doing was very similar to how several other categories are arranges, for example Category:Film and Category:Films. Sorry, I should have probably mentioned it here as well, but someone could have left a not on my talk page... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

I have written an article about the Cogan House Covered Bridge, which is on the NRHP and is up for Peer Review here. I would appreciate any feedback from those more in the know on bridges as I plan to take this WP:FAC next. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My first impression is: I'm tempted to add {{infobox bridge}} to your article. Other than that, it's going to take a while to read that! Wow, and a lot of refs, too. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: there's a Geobox Bridge? oooooooo, nevermind! - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I do like Geobox Bridge. Hope you can find the time to read it and comment - any feedback is appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After some very helpful PR comments (thanks to all who chimed in) the article is now at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And now is FA - thanks again to everyone who helped, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there an area on the project page (that I probably overlooked) where I can add new articles/stubs? I forgot to tag Connecticut Avenue Bridge over Klingle Valley when creating it, but it's done now. I looked through Category:Bridges in Washington, D.C. and tagged some articles that have been around for a while: Charles C. Glover Memorial Bridge, Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Anacostia Railroad Bridge, Amtrak Railroad Anacostia Bridge, Benning Bridge, and New York Avenue Bridge. APK ^{yada yada} 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a place where new bridge-related articles show up, but I don't know what it is off-hand. I added the US bridge stub template for Connecticut Ave Bridge article you mentioned. - Denimadept (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge future FA

Compared to San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, Pulaski Skyway, and Cogan House Covered Bridge, BP Pedestrian Bridge is extremely short. I am wondering if anyone knows architecture, bridge, metalwork or engineering articles that describe the bridge. I am not a bridge guy, but I hoped to bring it to FAC in the future. Any advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge Q2

(moved to separate discussion) By the way, in the statement that the bridge is built to highway standards, do you guys know what that means?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That has to do with the loads this structure can support. The article says it has been designed to withstand a full load of pedestrians, that is, wall-to-wall congestion. Think of the structure that collapsed in a Kansas City hotel in the 80's under the weight of all the people standing on it. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties with bridge types

We've found some issues with classification of bridges by type. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil engineering#Issues with bridge types for discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bridge picture: Île aux Tourtes Bridge

Due to the difficulty of finding an adequate spot from which to take a picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge, I took one from more than two miles away, and the result is what it is. To get a better picture, one would have to get on a private boat. Does anyone in Montreal ever sail on the Lac des Deux Montagnes? If so, a better picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge would be appreciated. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not willing to charter a boat? Or buy one? Or swim? C'mon, how committed are you? :-DDDD - Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to take into account the fact this is all for one picture. :-D --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at a satellite picture of 45°25′N 73°59′W and you'll see what I'm talking about. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge

Come visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll for interest for new Wiki

I'm considering starting a new Wiki for structures, similar to Structurae but easier to work on. This would be about structures, especially including bridges, past, present, and future. This would include proposed structures, and would likely copy quite a bit from Wikipedia such as templates etcetera. Is anyone interested in such a project? - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notification

There is a bulk Articles for Deletion nomination discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turner Falls Road Bridge that covers not only the named bridge but several others. You are invited to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any guidance to be found for which bridges should have articles and which probably do not deserve articles? There are certainly hundreds of bridges which are highly notable by any reasonable standard, but there are also thousands of bridges which are fungible 2 lane highway bridges over small creeks or other depressions and practically indistinguishable from one another in their construction, yet which are WP:V verifiable from state highway department databases or maps. If the project's viewpoint is that every bridge which ever verifiably existed deserves an article, then AFDs could serve as a screening method to help create de facto guidelines based on AFD results. A claim for inherent notability for every bridge will find some opposition in AFDs.Edison (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Notability characteristics include (but are not limited to), being:

• issued any award during its lifetime
• any maximum extreme (at any time during its lifetime): longest, highest, tallest, widest, ...
• a historic bridge, on any one or more of several registers (national, state, engineering organizations, "local" historic societies, ...)
• a (surviving or rare) example of an architecture, construction, or engineering technique.
• either in a collection of several other related ones or needed as a link or point of reference between other more notable ones.

The bridges in the Turners Falls AfD nomination fall into several of the above categories.

LeheckaG (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All the criteria sound reasonable except the last one, "part of a collection" or "link or point of reference" which just promotes the serial listing of non-notable things via the "preceded by" - "followed by" gimmick. If there is an historic bridge, then 10 utterly non-notable bridges, the notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure how to word it, but in a "notable collection", the otherwise notables (at least 70%) should outnumber the non-notables; and as to the "link or point of reference" in a series of navigation boxes: (previous, current, next) - guessing that there should NOT be more than 2 or 3 consecutive non-notables. If two or more consecutive "non-notables" exist, then only ONE article page for that "sub-collection" should be created, and should contain a table enumerating what is know about each one (what would normally be in an Infobox). Such sub-collection pages would permit links/navigation to be "unbroken" while preserving factual accuracy. LeheckaG (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion you state is appealing, but hard to specify as a guideline and likely to get shot down, based on the fate of other proposed notability guides I have seen, because of the arbitraryness of "70%" etc. Some editors love to create a complete set of entries for something, however non-notable, as if their articles were a coin collection to be completed. There are bound to be independent and reliable sources about any major bridge (beside highway department databases) in newspapers from the state or region ("Old Highway 666 bridge in bad shape," "Legislature appropriates money for new highway 666 bridge," "new bridge open for traffic," etc). Edison (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the AFD, Peterkingiron suggested "all bridges crossing a major river" as a notability criterion, and I see some sense in it, so long as we can agree that the Nile or the Ohio are major rivers, but what about lesser rivers such as Pahsimeroi River. Where would the line be drawn? And would all bridges in a city which span a river like the Thames or the Chicago River get a presumption of notability? Edison (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify the notion that a bridge spanning a major river is inherently notable. In addition to the concerns expressed by Edison, any bridge spanning the Lower Mississippi is notable, but what about the Upper Mississippi? I mean, what about a bridge that crosses a major river near its source, for example a bridge crossing the Mississippi in Itasca County, Minnesota? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In other proposed notability guidelines I've dealt with the "presumption of notability" just took something as an indicant that multiple published sources probably existed. If an athlete has competed at the "highest amateur level" then there is a presumption thta newspaper coverage exists. If a bridge spans the Ohio, then there are probably articles about it sufficient to satisfy WP:N. If the bridge spans a river near its origin, then the river may be so small and the bridge so short that there is little except directory type listings, but there are probably at least a couple of regional newspaper articles.Edison (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 25#Turners Falls Road Bridge --NE2 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who do not know what the above means:

• The Administrator closing the initial "Turner Falls Road Bridge" AFD which was really SIX bridges across the Connecticut River in Connecticut and Massachusetts ignored the Keep vote of the Majority because they apparently did not satisfy some posting criteria. So he ignored the Keep vote of the Majority and when ahead and deleted the SIX bridge articles.
• The AFD of the six bridges is apparently being appealed, so there is a 4 to 5 day window to vote to "Overturn" their Bulk Deletion. Go to the "Deletion review" link NE2 posted and Vote.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, if you think the deletion was not in error, feel free to vote "endorse". --NE2 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• The deletion review aside -- and just a stroke of luck I happened to surf here to ask my next question, because for all the people upset over me not notifying this Wikiproject of the AfD, none of them thought worth informing me of the deletion review -- I'm curious about LeheckaG's assertion that the AfDed articles fulfilled several of the criteria he listed. Which ones, please? What awards did they win? What maximums did they meet? What historic registers are they on? Of what kinds of architecture are they notable and rare surviving examples? Given the extreme opposition to the AfD, though, I wonder whether Edison's surmise that the project's viewpoint that every bridge verified to have ever existed is notable by definition is spot on ... in which case why bother to claim that notability criteria exist at all?  RGTraynor  06:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The answer to that may be that notability is a guideline to help us improve the encyclopedia, and if we can do that and ignore notability, more power to us. When the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapsed, people were surprised that there was already an article on the crossing, yet generally considered it a good thing. I don't know if it was "notable" before the collapse, and I don't really care. --NE2 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football we have found it handy to create an essay on notability for our project. You might find it helpful to do the same.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(nods) We've done the same at WP:HOCKEY, and that was about two weeks worth of wrangling. Has there been a similar process here?  RGTraynor  15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been overturned; almost everyone agreed that the deletion was in error. --NE2 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It still wouldn't hurt to have such an essay, to avoid the next time someone comes up with a such an AfD. It's not like this is the first time. - Denimadept (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1501 articles are assigned to this project, of which 162, or 10.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Bridges article}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Hi, I've added another featured picture to your gallery. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

how tag bridge articles covered by this project?

To the List of bridges in the United States, I just added "WikiProject Bridges" template, but I think that indicates the list is a member of the wikiproject, not that it is an article covered by the wikiproject. I don't see any scoring system here, how many articles are covered by this wikiproject. Anyhow, how do I add a bridge article or a list of bridges article to the wikiproject? There are 50 or more bridges lists covering bridges listed on the NRHP in the U.S. to add right now. Please advise! :) doncram (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, found an example: "WikiProject Bridges article|class=B" for an individual bridge, or "WikiProject Bridges article|class=list" for a list. I took the liberty of expanding on the brief "Article Template" section of wp:Bridges to make the template easier to find. Also, still, where/how do you see how many articles are covered by the wikiproject? doncram (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See the pages at the bottom of Category:Bridge articles by quality, in particular Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bridge articles by quality statistics. --NE2 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tunnels?

Would it make sense to include tunnels, or is this best kept to a separate project if people wish to collaborate about them? --NE2 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what looks like a nice article on the topic, with a category. It might be worthwhile to try their talk page and ask them what they think. It's certainly a related topic, but is it a subset? I dunno about that. - Denimadept (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made a post on Talk:Tunnel about the apparent tenuous (or perhaps not so tenuous) equation of a tunnel as a bridge. I do see that these two subjects are very closely related, and I wonder if people here would object to tunnels and bridges being combined as one WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels? __meco (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that the topic has come up before. Let's discuss this with the tunnel people before we ruthlessly Borg them into our collective. - Denimadept (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You will also notice that currently, there is no WP:WikiProject Tunnels. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Then you should go create it, then we'll negotiate with you. - Denimadept (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Έ

Exactly. Since there are no organized "tunnel people" there's hardly any point in sitting idle waiting for some to aggregate, is there? Are there any who have reasons not to include tunnels (and hence include the word tunnels in the project name)? __meco (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose a change to "Crossings", to include bridges, tunnels, ferries, fords, pogo sticks, and anything else one can cross with. Okay, maybe leave out the pogo sticks. "Crossings" would be consistent with the various lists of them. - Denimadept (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Both tunnels and bridges have a central element of architecture and structural engineering about them, which may be an important reason for some to be members of this project. Adding ferries would stir up that coherence. __meco (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. So this project would remain under the heading of "civil engineering". - Denimadept (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What is notable?

Let's have a discussion on this topic for use by this project. There are two issues here. A notable bridge goes over a notable river. So we have to distinguish a notable river from a vernal trickle, and we have to distinguish the San Francisco Bay Bridge from a fallen log over a stream.

Is size important? Technical accomplishment? (Iron Bridge) Age? Material used? Designer? Location in a more general way (not all bridges go over water)? Does failure play a part, ala the first attempt at the Quebec Bridge (75 human lives and a notable designer) or the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1 dog and a car and another notable designer)?

And we've got the other end, of a fairly mundane bridge of no particular interest in a notable location which made a big splash (hah) when it failed I-35W Mississippi River bridge and suddenly caught the spotlight and $250M check from the USG.

So, what's notable? Maybe an easier question is, what's not notable? I suspect a regular fallen log bridge is not notable, but maybe it is if it's the first one. Pin-connected truss bridges like Janice Peaslee Bridge used to be entirely non-notable to most of the population because they were so common, but these days such a bridge, especially a new bridge of that sort, would be very unusual, I think (Westfield, Massachusetts#Great River Bridge project). But is that last bridge notable? Is its river?

I suspect part of the issue is a disagreement about the goals of Wikipedia. We're trying to make an encyclopedia. Okay, less than 100 years ago, Encyclopedia Britannica was in one volume. Last I looked, it was in something like 30 volumes with an on-line service as well. We're not bound (hah) by print limitations here. We're not especially limited by storage space either. Nor by number of editors. I think the goal of Wikipedia as stated so far is, at this time, a bit limited. It's not making good use of its main resource, which is a dynamic website which can have not only well established information but up-to-the-minute data related to the subject. For instance, construction schedules related to these bridges on a more systematic basis. Why would people care? They'd want to know in case construction was going to cause them commuting trouble, for one example. Is that not notable? Granted, the information may have an expiration date after which it should be removed. Perhaps that should be on a different web site. Not my call.

I need help filling in the blanks here. - Denimadept (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We can start from what other sources consider to be notable bridges: [3][4] It looks like a 400-500 foot cutoff for over-water bridges might work as a first approximation. On list of bridges on U.S. Route 101 in Oregon, I used 100 feet, but I don't think all of those need articles. Can someone with more skills than me download the National Bridge Inventory and see how many are longer than 400 feet and over water (if possible)? --NE2 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Current) National Bridge Inventory units are meters; conversion:

	Total	Bad or No Data	<	=	> <	=	> <	=	>
Feet (to Meters)				100 feet (30.5 m)		400 feet (121.9 m)		500 feet (152.4 m)
#	715563	370	405351	3576	259864	509	12225	187	33851

• NBI Item No.: 49, Name: "Structure Length", Position: 223-228, Length/Type: 6/N (in 1/10ths. of a meter). Above are rough counts of NBI bridges: Total, Bad/No Data, and shorter, equal, and longer than 100, 400 and 500 feet. LeheckaG (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got that, but I haven't decoded it yet. I've not yet figured out what kind of operations I want to do on the data. - Denimadept (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, wooden covered bridges used to be relatively non-notable/common. Today since there are relatively few surviving examples compared to how many were built, Surviving wooden covered bridges are generally notable.

Bridges which are on a National Register of Historic Places, HABS/HAER/HALS, state historic lists/registers, or historical society/professional rosters, ... would generally be notable. I guess a general notability question would be what is the expected lifetime for a given type of bridge (or bridges on the average) and has this bridge exceeded its expected lifetime? In Pennsylvania, the average bridge lifespan was estimated as 49 to 50 years, while part of Ontario Canada estimated theirs to be 60 to 70 years.

Apparently, the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River resulting in 46 deaths prompted the U.S. Congress to mandate the National Bridge Inventory and regular bridge inspections. The 2007 collapse of the Minneapolis I-35 bridge killed 13 and injured nearly 100, and was built in 1967 (40 years ago). National Bridge Inspection Standard generally requires bridge inspections at least once every two years (it varies from 1 to 4 years depending on various conditions). Alaska's (8) oldest bridges were built in 1900. The National Bridge Inventory 2007 ZIP/Ascii download version contains 715,563 bridge entries going back to (2) built in 1800; and (856) with blank " " and (2) with just "19 " (century but no year) Year built information. In 2007, omitting the 858 (856+2) "bad" entries, the average US NBI Year built is 1968 (1967.90), making the average age of a U.S. bridge 40 years old. The "design lifespan" of a US bridge is usually shorter than that (usually 20 to 40 years) so the majority of US bridges are 50% to 100% beyond their design lifespan and have not been replaced because of the immense backlog and lack of sufficient funding. These statistics will vary widely from state to state. Age (either "very" old or new) can be one of the significant factors influencing notability.

US National Bridge Inventory 2007

State	Count	Bad/No Data	Oldest	Average
US	715563	858	1800	1967.90
AK	1375	17	1900	1979.95
CT	5426		1832	1963
MA	5660	2	1822	1953.15
OH	33229		1850	1965.35

Bridges which were the highest/tallest, longest, widest, at some point during their lifetime are relatively easy notables.

With a few exceptions (usually for other notability reasons), bridges solely for man-made reasons (i.e. "crossings, highway interchanges, ...) would generally be non-notable.

while the majority of bridges over "majors" natural features (valleys, canyons, water, ...) might more generally be notable. i.e. If a natural feature can generally be forded or easily gone around, then it might not be notable.

If someone would like to see specific statistics, let me know what you would like to see and I can dig up the numbers and post them. Like if anyone wants to see the number, oldest and average Year built for the other US states?

LeheckaG (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• NBI Item No.: 37, Name: "Historical significance", Position: 188, Length/Type: 1/N.

The historical significance of a bridge involves a variety of characteristics:

• the bridge may be a particularly unique example of the history of engineering;
• the crossing itself might be significant;
• the bridge might be associated with a historical property or area; or
• historical significance could be derived from the fact the bridge was associated with significant events or circumstances.

NBI Historical significance

Code	#	Description
1	1602	Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places.
2	3550	Bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
3	14588	Bridge is possibly eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (requires further investigation before determination can be made) or bridge is on a State or local historic register.
4	96247	Historical significance is not determinable at this time.
5	496003	Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
"" or " "	103573	Bad or No Data

LeheckaG (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the recent AFD debate:

• Joseph E. Muller Bridge is coded "3" (NRHP eligible/on State/Local register)
• Turners Falls Road Bridge is coded "4" (not determinable)
• Route 10 bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts is coded "5" (currently not NRHP eligible)

At 707 feet (215 m) the Route 10 bridge is among the 3.12% of the nation's longest, and among the longest 2.73% in Massachusetts. So while it is not yet "historical" ... If someone is interested, I could do queries comparing its length while ignoring bridges built later to determine its relative rankings at the time when it was built? LeheckaG (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you organize your copy of the DB, LeheckaG?

Okay, so we've got

1. Age
2. NBI historical significance value, which will need some kind of backing
3. engineering significance (structure type, material, size, special architecture, disaster/failure)
4. special location
5. perhaps rarity (covered bridge, transporter bridge perhaps?, I dunno what else)
6. ???

- Denimadept (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had downloaded the NBI 2007 ASCII/ZIP (about 50 MB) and extracted it (about 300 MB) to the StateYear.txt files. I am an experienced Engineer/Unix systems programmer/administrator so writing short programs or scripts to do various queries of the text and count/average, filter, or sort is not a big deal (most are "one-liners"). Since Wiki is already running SQL databases, I wish there was a way to create Project-created/oriented tables of "Source Data" so that standard queries could be done (on Wiki, in particular from within articles). Proposed source data would be: "dumps" of National Register of Historic Places, National Bridge Inventory, USGS Geographic Names, ... With the raw source data available on Wiki - many "list" articles could be reduced to a query surrounded by some formatting and a text description. Likewise with US Census data, that way "annual" updates for each of those could be done by updating the source data without needing to go in an update each affected article. I am not sure if Commons, ToolServer, WikiSource or elsewhere would be the appropriate venue? LeheckaG (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about "creating" articles on the fly, I'm already doing something similar to that in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football with head football coaches. You can see examples of the work by going to my user page and browsing any of the coach templates there. Many of the articles have been "picked up" by other editors and combined/grown/edited/etc.

The process involves taking raw data from the college football data warehouse and "building" a wiki-text file around that data. I then "cut-n-paste" upload to make sure I don't overwrite anything and can combine existing articles "on the fly" -- it's still a manual process, but I can do a block of one school's history of head football coaches in about 30 minutes. I'm sure a similar process could be duplicated here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had written scripts to put WikiText around table contents extracted from authoritative sources (like Lakes and Rivers from USGS GNIS to create "List of ..." articles), but then you create a "perpetual" update issue.

U.S. Census data is probably the most extreme case where the source data changes creating an update issue. Similarly, the National Bridge Inventory data is published annually. I did a little more research, and it is possible to request a Wiki "ToolServer" account (I am not sure about the nomination/approval process is) which gives one read access to replicated Wiki tables and the ability to create shared Username_Tablename_P tables ('P' apparently means Public) which can be read by other ToolServer programs/scripts and users. The "missing piece" is the ability to perform a "canned" SQL query within WikiText (placing the results into a WikiTable or other Cascading Style Sheet construction). For instance if the NBI was available on ToolServer, then a Bridge article instead of embedding NBI data as text would be able to instead embed an SQL query specifying which bridge and which statistic(s) to retrieve (in a Geobox/Infobox, inline in text, in tables, ...) Similarly, a "List of ..." article would instead set up the table format/style and then include a "canned" query retrieving all bridges matching a given criteria (Like "NRHP" and "Ohio"). LeheckaG (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another notability criteria would be if the bridge has a Nationally-recognized official name (USGS "official" Board on Geographic Names bridges by state):

USGS GNIS

State	#
AK	5
CT	107
MA	111
OH	223

CT/MA bridges were the subject of the recent AFD which stirred this up; I am an AK resident and grew up in OH (in case anyone wondered why I have been listing those examples out of the 50 states and US territories). LeheckaG (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking how to program it, LeheckaG, just how you organized it. It sounds like you just kept them as flat files. I was thinking to insert them in a MySQL db and then can some queries.

Anyway, that's not really the topic here. We can discuss how we want to modify the underlying MediaWiki software later. The issue right now is Notability. - Denimadept (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• A few random thoughts for openers. First off, when talking about notability as linked to an event, that's an absolute; Tacoma Narrows and the I-35 bridges have, as WP:N stipulates, received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and are notable for that reason alone, the pre-event notability of the span notwithstanding. Secondly, WP:WEASEL is pertinent: it isn't enough to suggest that a bridge "may" be "significant," "may" be historic, "could" be derived etc. There must be reliable sources claiming that outright, inference and interpretation free. Thirdly, are you writing articles about the bridges or about the crossings? If the former, then it's inappropriate to argue the notability of the present span based on prior bridges on or around that location; if a prior bridge was notable, an article may be appropriate for that span ... but that has nothing to do with the current bridge. Finally, criteria based around superlatives always play well, while subjective ones (X% of bridges in a particular geographical region, all bridges over a certain river (and who decides what rivers are significant enough?)) don't.  RGTraynor  20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, an article about the crossing is more useful than a single bridge as the reason for the existence of a more recent bridge is directly related to the former bridge. One can then discuss all bridges at a particular crossing location in a single article rather then splitting them up. Certainly, bridges on the NRHP or a state historic bridge list should be inclluded. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question that anything on the NRHP is notable, which leads to a tangential thought - are there notability standards in place for buildings, and if so, which of them might be applicable here?  RGTraynor  22:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is one for buildings that is currently being proposed. For bridges, however, being a transportation infrastructure, guidelines for things like railway stations or roads/highways might be more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then there's things like bridges for art. See Bridge of Flowers, which should probably have its own article. - Denimadept (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought about writing an article for the Bridge of Flowers at one point, but in truth there isn't really a great deal to write; the history even held by the local trolley museum is scant beyond the bare facts that some maniac, in the heyday of intercity trolleys, thought it'd be a paying proposition to have a trolley run between two Berkshire villages in the middle of nowhere, built a wee bridge to pull it off, and the local townsfolk had a novel notion on what to do with the thing when the trolley went broke.  RGTraynor  03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A good example of articles being about crossings rather than physical bridges: London Bridge and London Bridge (Lake Havasu City). --NE2 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then there's WP:PAPER. - Denimadept (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so, and to quote from that policy: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." (emphasis in the original)  RGTraynor  17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

Recently, I pointed out that a bridge that crosses the Mississippi in Itasca County, Minnesota is not necessarily notable, given that in that area the Mississippi is just a small stream that can be spanned by a fallen log (okay, maybe not that small). I think any bridge that is notable because of its size would make any other bridge downstream from it inherently notable in most cases. Let's understand: the 18-lane-wide bridge of Ontario Highway 401 over Etobicoke Creek will never become notable on its own unless it collapses. When I'm talking about size, it's mostly length. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was what NE2 was proposing above that there be a set cutoff of 400-500 ft for water crossings, which appears to be what other lists of "notable" bridges are using. While somewhat arbitrary, it would be a convenient and easy rule. --Polaron | Talk 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notification

There is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakwella Bridge that might be of concern to project members.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bridge

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The first railway suspension bridge is now at FAC

Please take a look at the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and leave comments at its FAC. Thank you Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge

I am having trouble resolving controveries with references refering to handrails that do not exist in the pictures of the BP Pedestrian Bridge. I am not a bridge guy and thought you guys might know a little something about this bridge which is the must artistically beautiful bridge I know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 June 2008

"does not have standard handrails" does not say "does not have handrails". There's plenty of room for non-standard handrails. :-d I've revised a bit in the article to fill out the infobox a bit better. - Denimadept (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has tons of images. What would you mean by non-standard handrails?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The two sources about handrails appear to differ. Reference #5 (the Blair Kamin newspaper review) states, "No handrails to muck things up, just waist-high walls that hold you in." Reference #13 (Architectural Sheet Metal Expertise) says, "They also designed, fabricated and installed a custom #4 brushed stainless steel handrail on the bridge." I'm guessing the newspaper architectural review didn't want to call them handrails (in the traditional sense), while the sheet metal guys installed something they're calling a handrail (in a nontraditional sense). I guess I'd go with saying that there's a non-traditional handrail system. I didn't check the other references to see if they say anything about handrails -- maybe there's some kind of agreement there. Given that it's a Frank Gehry design, anything is possible. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I might even desribe them as parapets. Most railings will be made with openings. If the structure extends up and forms a wall to keep people from falling off, then it is a parapet. - SCgatorFan (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In UK use, a parapet is any edge barrier on a bridge, whether solid or post-and-rail. A "handrail" is the bar that you actually hold with your hand, like the handrail on most staircases; most bridge parapets don't have a handrail. Describing it as a parapet or balustrade is appropriate. -- Kvetner (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear features

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as bridges, tunnels, roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New article on historic RR bridge

Hi! Just did a stub on the beautiful Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge in Torrance, CA. I can't seem to find specs, load limits, etc. since it's out of service. I thought I should alert you to the entry if anyone's interested in expanding it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's your idea of a stub, I'd really like to see what you consider a full article! Let's see, nothing at Structurae. Looking... - Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bridges in X County

I have just become aware of the statement in Category:Bridges in New York that "For convenience, all bridges in New York State are included in this category. This includes all the bridges that can also be found in the subcategories." We presently have only two Bridges in X county categories, Category:Bridges in Orange County, New York and Category:Bridges in Ulster County, New York. And we have some editors adding a county and state cats to bridge articles.

Is this where we want to go, with each bridge assigned to one or more counties, and one or more states? Or should we exclude a county cat breakdown from the duplicate cat situation, on the grounds that, when all of the county cats are in place, the child cats will exhaustively contain all articles that belong in the parent State cat? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is something similar going on in River articles-- see WT:WikiProject_Rivers#Category:Rivers_of_Ulster_County.2C_New_York -- Mwanner | Talk 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to keep the bridges in the state level category and document county-level groupings only in list format. Categorizing by both just causes unnecessary clutter, and will be unstable as there will inevitably be those who think the state category level is redundant when the bridge article is included in a county subcategory and keep removing the parent. Including the bridges in only the county level categories will hinder navigation, as we shouldn't presume most Wikipedia readers to be as familiar with or interested in county divisions as they are states, and the mere 110 articles at present in the state category will be too spread out among the 62 categories of New York, even acknowledging a degree of unequal distribution. Having lists that organize the bridges by county will preserve that information without making the category structure more difficult to deal with. Each county bridge list could be categorized both by the county's main subcategory (e.g., Category:Ulster County, New York) and an appropriate subcategory of Category:Bridges in New York, such as Category:Lists of bridges in New York by county, so that the information is linked from both places. Postdlf (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I created the bridges cat for both counties because the parent cats were getting grossly overpopulated. I suppose you could merge the county-level bridge cats back in to the county-level transportation cats. But I also would like to say that there's potential for a lot more bridges in both categories. Particularly in Ulster, where I think a couple more of the bridges over the Wallkill and Rondout may merit articles (is there any notability standard for bridges? I should join this project and help develop some if there aren't. In fact, I should just join this project period since I write about enough bridges), as well as some from the National Register that I have photos of and will be developing articles about when I get to processing them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To my thinking there would be nothing wrong with the county cats if it weren't for the policy statement at Category:Bridges in New York all but mandating duplicate cats, but I can also see why that's there, since there are a number of non-exhaustive cats involved with Bridges. What do you think of Postdlf's suggestion of using County List articles in lieu of County Cats? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see his point, given that some counties, in NY (Hamilton) and outside for that matter are unlikely ever to have enough notable bridges to justify a cat. But at the same time, if we just leave all entries in "Bridges in New York" save NYC bridges we'll have a greatly overpopulated category. There are about a hundred bridges upstate on the National Register, most of which we haven't written articles about yet. There are notable bridges we should have and don't, like the Cohoes-Waterford Bridge.

In creating the Ulster and Orange cats, my intent was to depopulate the parent cat in a reasonable way. I certainly didn't mean to imply that every county in New York deserves a category (this is much like my approach in creating the rivers subcategories), just those that would support a small category of their own.

I mean, if this is what the bridges project wants ... a really large state-level cat with almost no subcats, fine. But I think that whoever wrote this, understanding that there are a lot of bridges in New York City and it would make sense to have their own cat, didn't really understand the implications of just how many bridges there are that articles could be written about in NY state as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even adding another 100 articles to the present NY state-level cat wouldn't overload it, or make it difficult to navigate (they are alphabetically organized, after all) so I'm not understanding that concern—what does overpopulated mean here? How is the category harmed or made less useful by having that many articles in it? I also think that creating any county subcategory necessarily invites the creation of more. I just don't think it's helpful to force readers to navigate through counties to browse or search the bridges in NY state. Postdlf (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I go to the Category:Bridges in NY, I want to see all the bridges in NY. I don't want to have to navigate to several pages to find the one I'm looking for. Unless we are talking about several hundred articles I don't think subdivision is necessary or desirable. Cacophony (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going by the implication of WP:CAT#Large categories, which seems to suggest that any category you have to page through is too large. Granted, you could add a table of contents per that section. But it just goes against what I see in every other sub-state level categorization ... Category:National Register of Historic Places in New York gives way to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orange County, New York and so forth. Cacophony, I'm not suggesting that the state-level cats be replaced by county-level ones. This project has decided to have it both ways, and that seems to be OK with the Wikipedia community as a whole. I'm simply defending the additional existence of county-level subcats.

Because without them, I'd list a bridge in both "Transportation in Foo County" and "Buildings and structures in Foo County". One very precisely and unambiguously named subcat is, IMO, better than two that seem to suggest a Venn diagram. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you keep all the articles in the state-level cat, how has the existence of county-level cats improved the large cat problem in the state-level cat? And it's not as if the existence of county-level cats is going to keep anyone from creating "Transportation in Foo County" and "Buildings and structures in Foo County" as well. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not how I'd run a project, but it wasn't my decision. If the bridges project is comfortable with it, it can be done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Gibbs street bridge - can this be saved? --NE2 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: this article is gonna need one heck of a copyedit job. It is barely intelligible as it is, and does not state what obstacle the bridge crosses. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's over I-5: [5] --NE2 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are not many freeway overpasses that are notable on their own, let alone a pedestrian bridge that is still in the planning stages. Does this one have any characteristic that makes it stand out? Maybe a mention in Interstate 5 in Oregon will be sufficient. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The completed bridge will have notability as an extradosed bridge, because that type is relatively rare. Also, a seven hundred foot span makes it a long span bridge, something not normally seen for a pedestrian bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New bridge stub

Schoharie Creek Bridge collapse. Improvements welcome (to the article, not the bridge - too late for the bridge)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, they improved the bridge in 2005. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Before that, it was just a bunch of stubs.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What type of bridge?

I edited Haikou Century Bridge and put in an infobox. I guessed the type of bridge but I think I am wrong. My friend took the pic. I will take a daytime shot ASAP. Perhaps the night photo will be enough for someone to guess the type.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's clearly a Cable-stayed bridge. I'm adding some refs and such to the article now. - Denimadept (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They all kind of look the same to me. Thanks for the fix.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was invited to this wikiproject.

Quite the subculture going on here. I created a stub called Bridge scour. Please feel free to edit it. It may be in DYK [6]. I would like to eventually replace the lead picture with a better one. Government pdf references from the article have lots which are great, but I am not sure on the whole copyvio situation. Can someone advise. Please, however, don't change the gif pic until after the DYK comes and goes. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If US Government, then all is copyright free. Peterlewis (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I will add some pics.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)