Talk:Suspension bridge

message: The information about which suspension bridges are the largest are from january 2001, so if anybody knows of any other bridges, then them in.Christian
Adrian I think that your on your small photo the resolution is very limited for the thin details of the bridge. I had the idea to rework your photo as a panoramic to have small size in Ko and good details :
Do you like ?
Ericd 15:54 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: Absolutely wonderful, I like very much, go ahead. I realised the bridge looked very thin when I placed it in the article so your panorama is a great solution. Will you put the pic in the article or shall I?
:Adrian Pingstone 16:09 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I leave the job for you, our baby has just woken up crying ;-)
Ericd 16:25 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Ok, job done. I've added a new page description to say that you and I were involved. Thanks again for the big improvement. Best Wishes, 
:Adrian Pingstone 17:49 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::I think it's a bit unclear, i have some up-close pictures of a suspension bridge if you're interested ( here ) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:59, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Ævar: why not upload them and see if we can use them? Mat-C 01:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was undone as the image was considered too wide. I implemented it as a centered, text isolated thumb, 15 months later. Size may be set in the thumb declaration if considered still too wide but this should fit 800 pix wide screens. -- Leonard G. 00:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (Early edits)

message: This note follows commented directions in the text to look here. An editor had them swapped.
1.) A catenary is the form taken by a chain or flexible cable when suspended at two ends. The tension and height of each end will determine the angles involved at the end, but for discussion, assume equal height - as would be seen in a cable suspension bridge before the suspender cables and deck are added.
2.) If loads are applied to a slack cable, equal loads with equal horizontal spacing, and the weight of the cable is considered zero, the cable will form an arc described mathematically by a parabola. Since the weight of the cable is not zero, the true form will be somewhere in between the two curves, but as the deck load is considerably greater than the weight of the cable, the curve is usually described as parabolic.
3.) As an aside, the catenary may be inverted to form a compression arch. In such an arch constructed from appropriately angled wedges there will be no shear forces on the wedges. A simple kiln may be constructed as follows: Determine the arch to be constructed in height and width and suspend a heavy cord or light chain near a piece of plywood. Trace the arc onto the plywood and cut out the arch. Make a duplicate and connect them with lathing or light material. This may then be used as a form for firebricks, using fireclay as morter to obtain the appropriate angles. The form must be elevated slightly on wedges so that it may be lowered and removed upon completion. Once the brick arch is complete the form is lowered and removed, leaving a self supporting arch. This may be repeated in a linear fashion to construct a long kiln from a short form. The catenary shape has the advantage that expansion and contraction of the bricks with changes in temperature do not induce additional stresses in the structure. This catenary shape was used to form the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Gateway Arch in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
-- Leonard G. 00:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Point 2) here seems incorrect. If many small equally spaced loads hang vertically from a cable (as in a suspension bridge) then the effect is simply to increase the effective mass per unit length of the cable. So the equilibrium shape is the same as that of a heavy cable, namely a catenary. Perhaps parabolas are commonly used as an approximation in practice, but that is a different, weaker, statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.100.189 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Catenary vs parabola

message: The Izmit Bridge in Turkey is now the 2nd longest bridge in the world.  There are also several others under construction that will be near the top of the list.  There is no info in Wikipedia about the Izmit Bridge. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I started an article (see Izmit Bay Bridge.  Please add info if you have it.  Thanks -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While several websites list the Izmit bridge as having been completed in 2002 or 2004, I have not found any first hand account of its opening.  If anyone knows anything about it, I'd appreciate hearing from you, or just update the article. -- Samuel Wantman 06:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Izmit Bridge in Turkey 

message: "This kind of bridge is particularly pleasing to the visual senses" - This is a matter of opinion. A lot of people find them quite unsightly.
:Like the one below?User:Leonard G.
: -
<BR><BR>
::Personally, I like this wooden one over the others, although the quote suggests it's not beautiful.  How about changing the original quote to "Many find this kind of bridge...etc."  Likewise, I do like it as in image in contrast to the others, however I believe we ought to try to circumvent the subjective nature of aesthetic. Kingerik 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractive? 

message: Anon reversions of vandalism may not be complete or appropriate restorations - please compare across a wider range of anon edits. Wikilinks were lost in a recent series which I have restored. I have also seen sneaky deletions in other articles embedded in a series of legitimate edits (Oil refinery) Thanks - Leonard G. 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps people do not know how to revert.  BTW Leonard, I'm still waiting for your response to my comment in the section above! -- Samuel Wantman 07:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your inquiry above (the use of GGBr?) - it is simply too iconic for my taste. Its use is just too predictable. The current image (Brunell's suspension bridge) that I selected is certainly relevant (it is one of the first and still in use), and it introduces an additional concept - the use of eyebar chain rather than wire, the latter well documented in the construction sequence. It is also a good quality image, nicely composed. - Leonard G. 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beware anon reversions 

message: Am I the only one watching this page? Huge sections were taken out, note the sequence starting with a few words (IP 81.99.134.105 at that time) - also deleted massively in File locking 8 Sept. and Tacoma Narrows Bridge 12 Sept. (the latter with addtion of some only remotely relevant text. Please help monitor articles agaist deltionist vandals, who may take only a word or paragraph, or even entire sections. Thanks, Leonard G. 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive deletions 6 Sept 2006

message: I do not understan the counter-intuitive choice of "Largest" in lieu of "Longest" for suspension bridge comparison.  It has long (pun intended) been a basis of classification description in both the professional and popular literature about them as well as in popular usage (a Google search resulted in: 650 "largest suspension bridges" / c.  11,000 "longest suspension bridges") RCEberwein 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Largest" suspension bridges 

message: I've removed the Real Fernando bridge from the "famous bridges" section, it was claimed to be the first suspension bridge in continental Europe, but was in fact predated by numerous bridges, including for example Marc Seguin's Annonay footbridge (1822); the St Antoine Bridge in Geneva (1823), designed by Guillaume Henri Dufour; and the Tournon-Tain L'Hermitage bridge by the Seguin brothers (1825). I will have a good go at the history of suspension bridges if I get time (it is a major exercise), but would suggest in general that if a bridge hasn't got an article of its own (i.e. is still red-linked), it is hard to see how it qualifies as a "famous" suspension bridge. -- Kvetner 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tournon-Tain bridge was designed for vehicles, according to Tom F Peters' book on Dufour. In any event, I don't think the type of load is significant: the St Antoine Bridge was the world's first permanent wire cable suspension bridge, and is therefore historically important in a way that the Real Fernando bridge was not. -- Kvetner 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Very nice to see the photos, but I would regard Peters' book as more authoritative, given his fairly meticulous reference to the primary sources. The photo of the Tournon-Tain bridge in particular appears to be the Seguins' second bridge at the site, not their original 1825 one. See for example ,  and . I am not sure you can even claim that the Real Fernando bridge is the oldest in Europe still to carry vehicular traffic, ever since its 1998 refurbishment, when most of the bridge was completely replaced, see  - I have a full copy of this paper, which states the bridge was converted to a footbridge and leaves it unclear whether even the original cables survive. -- Kvetner 11:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First suspension bridge in continental Europe 

message: In Construction Sequence/Suspender Cables there is the word swedge-  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swedge.  Is this supposed to be wedge?  If so I still don't understand it in this context.  What is this end like?
IceDragon64 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedge?

message: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forth Road Bridge CANT be missing!!!!!!!!!!! Fila3466757 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forth Road Bridge]]

message: I removed the following seemingly spurious reference to a well-known lenticular truss bridge
(An exception is the Royal Albert Bridge (1859) where the anchors are replaced by an arch between the columns.)
  
It didn't fit in with a discussion of the structure of a suspension bridge.  While there are certain very interesting aspects of a suspension bridge in a lenticular truss bridge, and someone who knows more than I may want to fit it into the body of the article, it didn't belong where it was.TjoeC (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Royal Albert 

message: I'm now getting a bit more free time and hoping to edit this article soon (a few piecemeal changes made to day to help prep the patient for major surgery). But if anyone else wants to chip in please do!
#Cut down the intro, too long
#Expand the history section to cover Finley, Seguin, Dufour, Chaley etc in more detail
#Add a note on a further type, the underspanned suspension bridge
#Cut down the largest bridges section, more of this should be in List of largest suspension bridges but not here
#Suggest revise the contents list to:
##History
##Structural behaviour, advantages & disadvantage
##Different types of suspension bridge
##Construction
##Largest bridges
##Galleries
I intend to add several references, please note there are several relevant texts on books.google.com including:
*The Port Folio of 1809 (includes James Finley's text on the first modern suspension bridges)
*Charles Drewry's "A Memoir of Suspension Bridges"
*John Weale's "The Theory Practice and Architecture of Bridges" - Kvetner (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to article 

message: See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Himalayan design of a bridge.  This appears to be someone's original research, and (at most) a paragraph to be added in proper context within the topic, rather than a new section. Tedickey (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A DYK nomination is involved:  Template talk:Did you know#Lac de Monteynard Avignonet.  See also Talk:Lac de Monteynard Avignonet#Himalayan design. --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the disputed text;  it concerns a simple suspension bridge built with wire rope aka cable.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himalayan design 

message: I have tried to untangle the confusion in the article between "suspension bridge" and its subtype that appears to be the true subject of this article, the "suspended deck bridge" also known as "suspended-deck suspension bridge".  I hope I succeeded.  Content removed from this article will be merged into others.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks generally ok Tedickey (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  The incoming links are a mess too;  I have started on them.  Would it be sensible to make  a disambiguation page? --Una Smith (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, since people would tend to also link the footbridges Tedickey (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested moving :Suspension bridge types → :Suspension bridge; please comment here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good Tedickey (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. This article needs to move back to Suspension bridge. While the most common type of suspension bridge is a suspended-deck suspension bridge, this article implies that all suspended-deck bridges are suspension bridges. That is absolutely not the case. the suspended-deck arch bridge is a normal form of arch bridge. (See the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) for examples of other types of suspended-deck bridges. If anything, suspended deck bridge should disambiguate to these two types of bridges. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we work this out on Talk:Suspension bridge types#Requested move?  What I am proposing, fundamentally, is a split of one article into two: one about :suspended-deck suspension bridges and one about :suspension bridges more generally.  The latter article would be the place to give a fuller historical overview of suspension bridges. --Una Smith (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension -> suspended deck 

message: Thanks to  for reverting  (which  didn’t notice). IMHO the user should be banned from moving articles at all due to their ignorance of hyphens. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The “–” incident (2019) 

message: Request move back to Suspension bridge, per overwhelming support from reliable sources.
* Federal Highway Administration
* NOVA (PBS)
* David McCullough, The Great Bridge
* NASA
* Encyclopedia Brittanica
* Fox News
Support as nom.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I produce reliable sources that show it is a "suspended deck bridge", then what?  Anyway, this RM conflicts with two RMs that have yet to close.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the lead paragraph of the Encyclopedia Brittanica article defines its scope as all suspension bridges, not this type specifically.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I think you are fighting a losing battle, as I am unable to find any editor agreeing with you. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so.  Should I start canvassing user talk pages for support?  --Una Smith (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you take offense at my seeking input from fellow project members. I placed no opinion on their talk pages, only made a note so that they would know a discussion had arisen and that their input might be valuable. That was something I learned one time I made a disputed change, rally the troops. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Clarification. "Support[ing] the revision" means using "suspension bridge" for the name of the article for "the type noted here". I can see from the earlier discussion that using any other name than "suspension bridge" was no more popular then than today. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: There was a request to MOVE and DELETE and that I posted for Suspended deck bridge in WP:AFD. That discussion/decision was pushed back to this talk page because it could be handled during a requested move process. You have completed a MOVE and REDIRECT. Did you determine that "suspended deck bridge" is a valid term and that it is appropriate for that title to redirect to the suspension bridge article? Please clarify your action. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you move a page, it automatically creates the redirect.  Do you think that Suspended deck bridge should point somewhere else?  The editing and deletion of that redirect is separate from the issue of where this article should be.  I have not made any determination about the redirect.  Frankly,  I do not think it is likely that someone will type in "Suspended deck bridge", nor link many articles to it, so I really don't think it matters much what happens to the redirect.  Most of the few links to it that already exist were added recently.  Since this is a wiki, if someone is redirected to a destination that they think is inappropriate, they will change the link to something better.  If someone thinks it should be deleted, they will nominate it for deletion.  -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think it should be deleted. I will do so, again. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move to [[Suspension bridge]] 

message: FYI I just asked for some editor assistance regarding (1) the lead and (2) the resolution of the "suspended deck bridge" deletion issue. It can be found at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Suspension_bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for editor assistance 

message: I propose removing the gallery entirely;  Commons is better.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should remain, but only have the best photos of important bridges or key features. Commons has too much to sort through. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture gallery 

message: Several bridges I have been looking at during the course of recent discussion (like this one here) have a cable that comes up from the side and underneath. I think I found a name for these cables.
*A Manual of Civil Engineering, Rankine (1873). The book gives a good definition on page 578 "In order to stiffen two suspension bridges in the Isle of Bourbon, the elder Brunel tied the platforms down to a set of inverted chains (called "counter chains") whose total cross section area is about one-third that of the main chains."
*The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, describes these sames ones on page 336. "A set of chains is added under each half of the bridge, in the form of an inverted catenary." "These supplementary chains are not arranged in vertical planes."
*A patent that uses the term "counter cables, and shows them with an inverted catenary in a diagram.
*Transitions in Engineering, By Tom Frank Peters. on page 139: "It is only in very recent twentieth century work that counter-cable braced tensile structures have once again appeared as economically interesting alternatives to heavily stiffened systems for bridges and for membrane structures."
You can also search google for both strings here and get a few other hits. I would think this is enough verifiability to call them "counter cables". - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name for cables underneath the span 

message: I found this mention of an earlier wire suspension bridge at bridgemeister.com.   It was also listed in this reference from the Helsinki University of Technology. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that Bridgemeister uses is available on-line. History of bridge engineering By Henry Grattan Tyrrell. Use that if any text is entered. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First wire suspension bridge? 

message: One issue with citing works that are under construction is that it's given in the context of a ranking Tedickey (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite of incomplete span? 

message: The given source doesn't support the extensive claim, is vague and perhaps not an authoritative source.  In particular, there's no distinction in the source between this type of bridge and the simple suspension bridges already mentioned in the lede. TEDickey (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - find the photographs, together with some discussion by a knowledgeable historian, and you have the basis for discussion.  TEDickey (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Comparing with the Simple suspension bridge topic, it's apparent that previous consensus on this point is that the bridges you're discussing are in that category rather than this. TEDickey (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern suspension bridges and simple suspension bridges are both "suspension bridges".  I'd like to know how anyone could justify saying otherwise.  There are current examples of simple suspension bridges in the USA, in existing articles on this WP. - Denimadept (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for first examples 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bosphorus Bridge Night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Does a novel about a bridge accident really have any place on this page? What are your thoughts on deleting the entry from the 'infamous suspension bridges' section? P0150neD r1Ce      asian 08:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section contains only three examples, and is itself WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  I think the header was the main source of what you might call WP:OR.  If not, please explain how it's OR to list well known bridges which have collapsed, and are well documented here on WP. - Denimadept (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Luis Rey 

message: I have removed the "see also" to suspended arch bridge from the siblings section in the infobox. Yes, the deck is suspended from the arch, but the structural mechincs of this bridge form are completely different from that of a suspension bridge.Meters (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  through arch bridge 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure.    -- Calidum 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Suspension bridge →  – There are various types of suspension bridges. The simple suspension bridge, the underspanned suspension bridge, the self-anchored suspension bridge, etc. This article clearly only describes the suspended-deck suspension bridge, where the deck is hung below cables on vertical suspenders (towers). After the move, this article should redirect to Types of suspension bridge. A "simple suspension bridge" is a suspension bridge. A "underspanned suspension bridge" is a suspension bridge. A "self-anchored suspension bridge" is a suspension bridge. To then have this article, suspension bridge, describe a specific suspension bridge that does not encompass the other suspension bridges is insanity. 143.176.30.65 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally what you write makes sense, but you fail to recognize that 99% of this article is only about 1 type of suspension bridge. The "simple suspension bridge" is mentioned in the lead merely to distinguish it from what this article is about. You essentially suggest rewriting an article that is almost entirely about a single type of suspension bridge, to an article that is about all types of suspension bridges. That doesn't make any sense. The logical solution is to move this article to a name that describes this specific suspension bridge, so we can have either a new article about all suspension bridges - or, if one's not yet written, a redirect to the Types of suspension bridge overview. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Indeed "suspension bridge" is a common name - for all kinds of suspension bridges. Your Average Joe will point to the bridge described in this article, and will say: this is a suspension bridge. This article, however, discusses only 1 type of suspension bridge. If the content of Horror film would be at film, then too would "film" be the common name. But we need to be more specific, since that article describes the horror film genre. See also my comment above. The lead of this article even says "Like other suspension bridge types, this type often is constructed without falsework." to point to other bridges that have commonalities but are different from the one described in this article. This article is not about suspension bridges in general, it's about 1 type of suspension bridge. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

text: After the move, the article could start with "A Suspended-deck suspension bridge, commonly referred to as simply suspension bridge, is [...]". Similar to how Contemporary R&B starts with "Contemporary R&B (commonly referred to as simply R&B) is [...]". --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Sheesh. I now see this problem has existed since at least 2009: Talk:Suspension bridge#Cleanup --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Basically, yet again the same argument. Can you give an example of another article title where the common name is used simultaneously to mean a broad overall group and also one sub-group within this, this being the best-known of several sub-groups? I don't feel like anyone opposing the move is acknowledging the special situation we have in front of us. I don't even think WP:COMMONNAME tells us what to do in a situation such as this. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 May 2021 

message: In this edit, the IP who failed to get his way in the RM discussion above has instead had his way by messing up the lead.  I don't think the lead was much good before, but this is not an improvement.  Shall we just undo that?  Or is someone willing to write a good lead?  Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that change is a mess. Meters (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I reverted to the old lead, then tweaked it to better acknowledge the other types and clarify the article scope. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre lead revision