Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 1

message: Why does the history of this page show all of the edits happening on August 2, 2007?  Isn't today August 1, 2007?
:Your history is set to the UTC time zone, the default setting for Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lt. Amelia Huffman told MSNBC that the number of confirmed deaths has been lowered to 4, but that number is expected to change throughout the day. -Jason ost 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History problem

message: Interesting information about the bridge at
http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/bridges/pages/ms16.html.
You should probably insert a link to this page.
I have heard up to 25 cars in the water - does anyone know more?
The whole bridge is GONE. John celona 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's going to be in big trouble now. --Jon Ace 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Governor Tim Pawlenty says there were no structural deficencies found in the 2006 inspection (source: KSTP). -Jason ost 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Story breaks

message: Remember everyone: facts welcome, but please remember to cite things.  If you're not sure how to cite, just put the url in brackets like this:  and experienced Wikipedians will help clean things up.  --Bobak 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking crisis

message: This event is separate from the actual history of the I-35W Bridge.   Should stand as it's own article like other disasters that have occurred. --Hourick 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to keep the coverage of the collapse on I-35W Bridge until (and if) long-term notability is proven. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Tomj 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Daveswagon 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the article is yet big enough to break out - I suggest not forking yet. As the article develops more will come to light about history ... --Golden Wattle  talk 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  most disasters are notable with a serious loss of life, especially when it is possible that the bridge might have collapsed by due to an engineering disaster with the amount of coverage.  There is precedent. --Hourick 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it turns out to be a notable disaster, we can expand it to its own page, but we don't know much yet.  I say to keep information here for awhile, and see how things develop. It'll be easy enough to split things out later if needed. --Elonka 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Serious loss of life":let's wait, wait... Tomj 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think given the media coverage, even internationally now (it's on the front page of the BBC), it warrants its own article. matt91486 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, amount of casualties aside, this collapse will have a long-term impact on the entirity of the Minneapolis/St Paul freeway infrastructure.  This will be felt for at least 2 to 3 years, and will be remembered thereafter, and that's even assuming MNDoT puts 100% of their work force into rebuilding this.  Then again, the Tacoma collapse doesn't have its own article either.  - EmiOfBrie 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As the one who killed off the split article before I must comment. - it's unwise IMO to have the information in two different places during this sort of "feeding frenzy" - we should all be editing one article so that there's one article history. --Random832 01:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I say yes it should, with the articles semi-protected. CrazyC83 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I say no (see below).Remember, Wikiepdia is not a newspaper. Tomj 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I say yes it should (per User:CrazyC83)172.191.100.66 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article is right here on wiki (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Highway_bridge_in_Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota_collapses) ;) -- Ownage2214 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's too early, let's wait and not create a separate page. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late! It split earlier today! 71.39.78.68 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, let us wait until the news frenzy calms down and everything comes together. - Enzo Aquarius 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another factor as far as its deserving it's own article is that EVERY Governor in the United States has ordered a re-evaluation of EVERY bridge in their respective states.  This will be a precedent setting disaster in the terms of infrastructure maintenance.   --Hourick 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, wait to split if there will even be a split Inklein 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This obviously needs its own article.  It had one earlier.  Weird stuff happens on this website sometimes.  Anyway... 65.92.177.195 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing its own article 

message: With the amount of vandalism this page has been getting, I recommend semi-protection. Agreed? CrazyC83 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFPP wL<speak·check> 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We don't want people to be misinformed, especially in a crisis like this. -Jason ost 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I put in a actual request for semi-protection on the request page.  Kimmy78 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. Also, there are some citation links that lead to goatse sites that have been overlooked and need to be replaced. - Enzo Aquarius 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: We should not be telling people about Alternate Route A or what Trivial Witness X said or Update Q made from News Source Y at Time D. This is not an event that should go without mention but we should be leaving those minute-by-minute updates for CNN. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the wikinews article. --wL<speak·check> 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the driving force behind the forum templates here on the talkpage. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah... or WikiNews, which is starving for attention I'm sure. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree. Given the circumstances, notable numbers of people attended that sporting event and the decision not to cancel it was directly related to concerns about access to the bridge site by emergency services. That said, any further details about the game (even the moment of silence) would be, IMHO, more helpfully left out of this article. Gwen Gale 12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The non-postponement is unusual because the bridge is spitting distance from the Dome and the collapse happened minutes before the game started, but the postponement of the game today and the groundbreaking ceremony is best left in the article about the Twins and the article about the new stadium, respectively. Natalie 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I like Gwen's idea.  I stand corrected; the fact that the game went on 'is' relevant to the article, however, the section should be shortened and contain only the necessary information. MplsNarco 08:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a news source 

message: A large amount of sourced content was removed. This is not the time to decide what is important or encyclopaedic and what is not. After things have settled down the article can be cleaned up and prosed but at the moment sourced content should remain. TerriersFan 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now the article includes (a) a link to radar of the region, (b) the specific hospital where victims were being taken, (c) the specific time at which CNN received a report, (d) information about an approaching thunderstorm, (e) information about alternate routes (no longer in the article), (f) Homeland Security declaring that this is not a terrorist attack (which, you know, they do for everything; saying the cause is unknown is sufficient for explaining this), (g) radio reports of I-beams being sheared (duh -- the bridge fell). -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in time (minutes, hours, perhaps days) the snipets will be consolidated down to a nice new section for the article. When an event is ongoing, trying to remove new material will just cause an edit war.  Let it live for now and clean it up to a more concise summary when recentitis has passed. --StuffOfInterest 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with StuffOfInterest, let's keep the links and everything relevant that's occuring for a proper summery later. It will make sifting through the information much easier and we can discard and keep items as needed. --Hourick 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's fine, but the stuff I removed had to do with roadwork that was miles from the bridge.  Anyone who lives (or lived) in the area would look at it and say "WTF!?!?" Ericy 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removal 

message: I have a number of different sources for the traffic.  
* 200,000 cars used the bridge per day 
* 140,000 (2002) 
* 100,000 
* 141,000 
Which one(s) should be used? P.Haney 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the low numbers are from MnDot and local news, I'm inclined to trust them a bit more.--Daveswagon 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual traffic count per MNDOT.  News reports may not be accurate.  New York Times says bridge links Minneapolis and St. Paul (!). Wikinews says bridge was 64 feet above the river, when that in fact is the clearance between the water at normal pool level and the lowest part of the span in the channel, not the distance from water to pavement.  Kablammo 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that we're talking about vehicles/people falling from the roadway to the water, I think the roadway height is probably the more important figure.--Daveswagon 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The 140,000 number is from 2005. The current number Mn/DOT is giving out is 200,000.(MSNBC)(Reuters) -- Tsunado 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet a local news source quotes MNDOT has saying 100,000 vehicles per day use it..  As the 141,000 figure appears to be based on actual traffic counts, it may be the most reliable.  Kablammo 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around more and I think you are right -- the 141,000 number is the most reliable. The Washington Post originally used the 200,000 figure (the Boston Globe has a copy of the original text) and the washingtonpost.com search engine, as of August 3, 2007, still shows a match for "200,000 vehicles a day". However, the text of the article on their web site now reads: "About 140,000 vehicles a day pass over the bridge, which connects two sides of Minneapolis, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation." -- Tsunado 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Traffic of bridge

message: We're not a news source.  We should not be giving affected people any information, including contact information or directions to head to a hotel for more information.  There are plenty of well-known ways for people to find information, and we don't need to be one of them. I've removed the header with this inappropriate information.  Keep it like an encyclopedia article, not like a newspaper article.  kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I was tempted to do it, but I had a feeling someone was going to claim I have been revert-warring removing news-like information. The phone number for giving blood was especially unnecessary. This is not a widespread earthquake or terrorist attack; this is an event where the main story is the structural collapse not an extensive loss of life. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see the merits of the Wikinews pointer box being temporarily at the top of the article. Anybody agree? —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with linking to Wikinews near the top, if someone would like to move that template up.  My problem is with us (Wikipedia) giving information aimed at affected people.  kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not clear to you how a couple dozen people in the hosptial necessitate a blood drive? How much blood do you go through when you operate on trauma victims? CMacMillan 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any big-city hospital worth its salt can handle a dozen trauma victims with supplies on hand. --Carnildo 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that if several big city hospitals in the same city have to each handle a few dozen trauma victims then supplies are going to be low afterwards and a blood drive is likely to be ideal, even though they can likely handle the immediate aftermath. In any case, while any blood drive call in the article was clearly unwarranty, claiming it is some sort of Red Cross conspiracy/spam without any evidence seems a bit silly to me particularly given the fact that well meaning people keep adding other unencylopaedic junk Nil Einne 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red cross info header 

message: Incorrect ("a large portion of the I-35W Bridge near University Avenue collapsed.")  It should be stated that the bridge is the section of I-35W between East-West University and Washington Avenues (which are on the north and south sides of the river respectively).  All the people around me and TV, I live next to the bridge, are saying that it collapsed on the South, Washington Avenue, side first.  After that two additional sections collapsed.  Thanks for posting this, I'm not registered.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.220.244 (talk • contribs).
:Problem is, with no source to support this, it can't go into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Misinformation

message: The article now says that "vehicles and pedestrians" were thrown into the river. This bridge is interstate traffic only with no pedestrian paths, and I don't think that it is correct to say anyone on the bridge is a pedestrian. I'm not sure how to edit it, maybe someone else can. RobertDahlstrom 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were construction workers on it.  Pfalstad 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bikers and joggers also (though very dangerous). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weren't the bikers and joggers on the path under it, not on the bridge itself?  Kablammo 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  West River Road runs under the west side of the bridge, and that's a popular spot for bikers, skaters, and pedestrians.  On the east side, there aren't any trails, but the Minnesota Commercial Railway has a couple railroad tracks under it.  There were no bike or pedestrian paths on the bridge itself, as far as I know.  The Tenth Avenue Bridge nearby has had the bike and pedestrian connections.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No bike lanes or walks, eight vehicle lanes (4 travel lanes in each direction).Badsongninja 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is absolutely no way to bike, walk, or jog on this bridge, especially when it's under construction and traffic is squeezed down into two lanes each way.  --24.118.60.104 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old fashioned editing complaints

message: Just a thought, is the water depth written anywhere?  It influences rescue efforts/survivability.  Andrew647 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US Army Corps of Engineers website says that a nine-foot channel is mantained on the Upper Mississippi, but I can't find any measurements from the time around the collapse. -Jason ost 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From an article on the Upper Mississippi from Gander Mountain, there is a shallow area extending from the edge of the channel to the shore.  It also says that the average water depth was 12 feet. -Jason ost 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts