Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 4

message: Should the destruction date be listed when the bridge is gonna be rebuilt? I heard Bush is pushing for the reconstruction of the bridge. --Voidvector 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do what they have on Tacoma Narrows Bridge and use one infobox for the rebuilt bridge (when it is rebuilt, it will take at least a couple years) and another box in the section about the collapse for the collapsed bridge. 66.115.196.2 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears to me the bridge has already been "destroyed" (albeit by act of nature), so I would guess the article should state the destruction date as when the collapse occurred. To me, it's just like the assassination date of a state leader — if he/she dies later, the assassination date is still the date when the attack occurred. [[Briguy52748 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction date 

message: It is somewhat disconcerting to have the first footnote of this article show up as [2]. This is caused by a footnote in the "AADT" entry of the bridge infobox, which shows up further down the page than the opening paragraph. I guess this can't be helped? - dcljr (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. Footnotes are numbered based on their order in the code, so we'd have to remove the footnote from the infobox, I guess. Alternatively, if footnote 2 could be used to footnote the same thing in the infobox, that would solve the problem handily. Natalie 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of thing has happened before; if you check out the FA class article Iowa class battleship, you will see the same thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The footnotes used in the Infobox_Bridge are number first. To start the article with footnote 1, we would have to move the Infobox_Bridge footnotes to the article (which would not be a bad idea). -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote snafu 

message: Steel under-deck double-arch truss
- deficient because of corrosion in the bearings
according to news conference 3:15EDT by Minnesota DOT. 
132.205.44.5 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bridge type 

message: I have noticed a bit of what looks like self-serving external linking, i.e. serving more to direct traffic to a personal site than to serve the project. The most notable being Common-Nation.com "It is the most trusted name is  news.". I have removed them. I may take a sterner stand on such than others so if an established editor wants any of them back just go ahead. --Justanother 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL 

message: http://coastguardnews.com/coast-guard-responds-to-minnesota-interstate-bridge-collapse/2007/08/01/ I don't have time to add it myself, but this link includes mile marker that the river underneath is closed. -Ravedave 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast guard & river closing 

message: Please ensure that your verbs are past tense. See WP:MOS#Precise language. If you look at the spirit of WP:NOT, you will be reminded that Wikipedia is not Journalism. There are many standards of Journalism that we should adhere to, but we should not be using present tense verbs in the prose outside of quotations and other special cases.  If you want to add information about an event that happened an hour ago (and remains true), then start the sentence with "As of..." and use past tense so that we do not have to go and change it again.  Also: once we know that the "9 deaths" information is not reliable and that only 4 deaths have been confirmed, then take out the "9 deaths" information altogether. Don't waste the reader's time with discredited information. Sure, the death toll could easily still end up being more than ten, but we should maintain the page with the best verifiable information and patiently wait for new information. In my opinion: if the current numbers are changing frequently, then use round numbers and change them less often. We have  many months of backlog at Wikipedia. If you need that rush of reporting up-to-the-minute (or, for that matter, up-to-the-week) information, then work on Wikinews more.--SallyForth123 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should acknowledge a few exceptions to that rule: We often say in a BLP that a person "is" something in the first sentence and we switch that to past tense when they die. Also, long-lasting municipal and geologic structures like roads and mountains use a present-tense to avoid confusion. Scientific facts like the speed of light simple "are".  So it is OK to say that I-35 "runs" near the stadium since trying to hard to use past tense would imply to the reader that it does not anymore. But for current events, we use past tense, even for the "Alternate routes" section (which is a bit of a "howto" section if you think about it, but at least it is in its own section and not lengthy.--SallyForth123 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use PAST TENSE verbs 

message: The bridge also crosses Grand Rounds Scenic Byway, Bluff St, SE 2nd St and some railroad tracks. I am not sure if those should be listed as well. In addition to Mississippi River --Voidvector 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossings 

message: Some points from the NY Times for your consideration to be added:
* recovery efforts hampered by currents
* death at hospital
* Governor's statement about inspecting all other bridges and that this bridge not due to be replaced to 2020
* Twins groundbreaking delayed
Canuckle 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times article for your consideration 

message: When the flurry of edits finally tapers off, the article should be reorganized on a more rational basis.  Now Construction and maintenance jumps from the intitial construction in 1967 to maintenance in 1991-98.  Then History takes us back to the 1800s and jumps forward to contemplated lane openings in 1989 and the de-icing system in 1996-2000.  Then in Structural concerns we have the inspection reports c. 2001-06, followed by the repairs underway at the time of collapse, which makes it appear as if those repairs had something to do with structural concerns.  It would be difficult to rationalize this sequence of events while the article is being changed so rapidly.  A more chronologic approach may be appropriate.  Kablammo 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: We still need a good reliable figure for height from the pavement to the river.  Media around the world have used figures of 60-some feet or 19.5 meters.  According to sources cited in the article, 64 feet is the clearance.   This figure is also clearly visible (for those with good eyes) on the orginal contract plans, Figure 1.1 at .  This means that that air draft, or distance from the water level to the lowest chord of that part of the truss arch located over the channel, is 64 feet above the pool level; it is higher at midspan.  And above that is the truss and deck.  The plans appear to show an elevation of 808' at about ground level for the piers at stations 60+75 and 60+85 near the south abutment at span 3, with an additional 29' of clearance above to the bottom of the deck, which would give us 837' to the bottom of the deck at this approach span, or 112' above the water level at ~725'.  That 112'+ fall to the river is considerably different from what is being reported.  Kablammo 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the deck height is clearly higher than 64 feet (19 metres) and that this more likely refers to the apex of the underlying arch but I too have had no luck in finding a source which clarifies this. Gwen Gale 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also know that the depth of truss (which means the vertical distance) above the concrete piers is 60'.  Scaling the elevation drawing also indicates a total height of well over 100'.  Kablammo 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it must be. Meanwhile I can't even find the deck height mentioned in the 2001 engineering report. This mis-reporting is utterly typical early in a news cycle (and has "always" been this way through history), where the broadest swath of the story is more or less distributed (the bridge collapsed) but many details are gotten wrong in the rush to produce copy. Gwen Gale 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The engineering reports do not seem to show deck height, which is why I went to the plans.  (These are contract plans, not as-built dimensions, which could differ slightly.)  Kablammo 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way you can cite the plans without doing so much interpretation that it could be taken as OR? I think it would be so helpful to readers if we could get the (much) higher deck height into the text somehow. Gwen Gale 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've downloaded that pdf and looked at figure 1.1 (zooming in quite a bit). In my opinion, anyway, the elevation heights (given in terms of sea level) are clear enough that I think it could support a statement in the article text along the lines of "the deck was over 100 feet above the river." Gwen Gale 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scaling from a number of stated dimensions on the elevation shows the actual height was over 110'-- closer to 120'-- above the river channel. Kablammo 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Only to confirm, you're still referring to fig 1.1 here? Gwen Gale 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the clearance height, not the deck height.  The Army Corps of Engineers bridge elevation profile and the contract plans show that the figure is measured from the low steel of the lower chord over the channel. Kablammo 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The height is important because... can you cite a secondary souce which unambiguously states they didn't fall 64 feet, but something more? By the bye, I'm sure the truss was collapsed (not crushed) substantially more than 5 feet. Either way, no way would I attempt to interpolate the distance of the fall from 40 year old engineering plans (besides, that would stray into blatant OR), but it would be helpful if the article could state the deck height and let readers get their own notions that the fall was more than 64 feet. Gwen Gale 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clearance over the water is measured from the lowest part of the arch chord over the water-- in other words, the bottom of the span. The bridge deck is many feet above that bottom steel-- this is a very deep truss. Vehicles in the water therefore fell at least 110 feet to the water's surface; others stayed on the deck which came to rest at various elevations. News reports indicate a fall of only some 64 feet when the actual distance was almost twice that. Kablammo 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that makes sense.  I'm not sure how great the "height compression" (be it collapse, or crush, or anything else) of the truss would be, other than it'd certainly be significantly less than 60 feet (I had misread it as 20 feet when I gave my five-foot guess--the dangers of reading Wiki just after waking up!).  I'd agree that, following the collapse, the details of the bridge design are notable enough to warrant a full description, including height of truss over piers, clearance over the water at  mid-span, and deck thickness, plus total deck elevation over the water.  Any attempts to list the total drop, however, would be OR; wait for an NTSB report to come out and give the approximate maximum distance fallen by any vehicle.  (Based on the video footage, I would assume that any vehicles that went into the river were sent there by the bounce from their suspensions compressing and rebounding at the bottom of the fall, having "ridden the span down" and then bounced or slid off after the span came to rest, meaning that the maximum fall might well have been the total deck fall distance.)  Rdfox 76 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: With falling objects accelerating at 32ft/sec/sec, even 20 feet can make a big difference upon impact and there are cars which wound up in the water, so even if they didn't get there by free fall, they descended substantially more than 64 feet. As you say, almost double that distance. At least by getting the deck height into the article, readers will have more of a clue about what happened until more sources are available. Gwen Gale 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sensitve to the prohibition against original research, but I don't believe the application of a ruler to a scale drawing violates it.  The cited source shows dimensions for several approach spans at 110', and the height is larger than those spans are long. Therefore I added a statement regarding height, but will leave it at that.  Kablammo 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the road surface was at about 830' above sea level and the water surface was about 725' above sea level (depending somewhat on river level, which has been unseasonably low due to drought).  News reports said that the school bus had fallen 40'; I'm guessing that some of the the cars in the river first fell along with the road surface, and then fell off as it descended, or perhaps when the bridge hit the ground.  I also heard that some people swam out of their cars and were relatively unscathed.  Their appears to be a wide spectrum of experiences among the survivors and deceased.--Appraiser 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The ACE gives dimensions as elevation of low steel, vertical clearance at pool stage, and clearance at high water, which are consistent with and also found on the contract plans.  Corps profile does not show elevation of deck (which is unimportant for navigation purposes).  Kablammo 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conclusion: ACE drawing says pool level is 720' above sea level (asl), with 1929 high-water at 727' asl.  Low steel is at 785' asl.  Does "low steel to road deck" of 45' seem reasonable?--Appraiser 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As the vertical clearance to pool elevations agree, this is likely accurate.  The bridge plans may use a more conservative High Water elevation, and the ACOE may be referring to an annual average HW elevation versus bridge plans referring to an all-time HW elevation.  The truss diagram from the report referenced above shows a dimension on page 1-3 (Figure 1.2) which is likely from a copy of the original plans and the height of the truss at the center of the main span appears to be 36' at L13.  Deck appears to be 3'+/- above upper members of truss. above Change in the guardrails, barriers, and pavement thicknesses are not significant to these dimensions, and have no relevance to the deck height above water. Badsongninja 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, on all counts.  Total depth of deck structure and pavement is unknown (although pavement depth may be available); detail drawings would be needed.  (The fatigue report does contain a cross-section of the deck truss structure, figure 3.6 at page 64 of the .pdf but has few dimensions.)  Superstructure elements are relevant only to ensure that any measurements are being taken from pavement level, not from guardrails, curbs, or median barriers. 36' depth of main truss is at midspan; it is more at measurement point for "low steel" above channel from which 64' clearance was measured. Kablammo 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems very confusing, but you seem to have figured it out. Please feel free to include whatever dimensions people would be interested in reading about.  They probably want to know how far these people fell, the depth of the river. Given how the heights and other dimensiuons change over the years and the variations between reliable sources, I think a referenced section explaining what you posted above, Kablammo, would be warranted. That way, people can pick and choose the dimensions important to them for the time period they are interested. Good work. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: Why is the height of the deck above the water important?  If you're attempting to find the total distance of the fall at the highest point of the bridge, wouldn't it be the clearance over the water (64 feet) plus the depth of the river (9 feet) plus the depth into the river bottom that the wreckage penetrated (unknown, but probably only 1-2 feet), plus the amount of crush the structure underwent (unknown, but probably less than five feet)?  I'd guess the longest drop anyone experienced to be no more than 80 feet, based on those numbers... Rdfox 76 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The height is important because... can you cite a secondary souce which unambiguously states they didn't fall 64 feet, but something more? By the bye, I'm sure the truss was collapsed (not crushed) substantially more than 5 feet. Either way, no way would I attempt to interpolate the distance of the fall from 40 year old engineering plans (besides, that would stray into blatant OR), but it would be helpful if the article could state the deck height and let readers get their own notions that the fall was more than 64 feet. Gwen Gale 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clearance over the water is measured from the lowest part of the arch chord over the water-- in other words, the bottom of the span. The bridge deck is many feet above that bottom steel-- this is a very deep truss. Vehicles in the water therefore fell at least 110 feet to the water's surface; others stayed on the deck which came to rest at various elevations. News reports indicate a fall of only some 64 feet when the actual distance was almost twice that. Kablammo 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that makes sense.  I'm not sure how great the "height compression" (be it collapse, or crush, or anything else) of the truss would be, other than it'd certainly be significantly less than 60 feet (I had misread it as 20 feet when I gave my five-foot guess--the dangers of reading Wiki just after waking up!).  I'd agree that, following the collapse, the details of the bridge design are notable enough to warrant a full description, including height of truss over piers, clearance over the water at  mid-span, and deck thickness, plus total deck elevation over the water.  Any attempts to list the total drop, however, would be OR; wait for an NTSB report to come out and give the approximate maximum distance fallen by any vehicle.  (Based on the video footage, I would assume that any vehicles that went into the river were sent there by the bounce from their suspensions compressing and rebounding at the bottom of the fall, having "ridden the span down" and then bounced or slid off after the span came to rest, meaning that the maximum fall might well have been the total deck fall distance.)  Rdfox 76 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: With falling objects accelerating at 32ft/sec/sec, even 20 feet can make a big difference upon impact and there are cars which wound up in the water, so even if they didn't get there by free fall, they descended substantially more than 64 feet. As you say, almost double that distance. At least by getting the deck height into the article, readers will have more of a clue about what happened until more sources are available. Gwen Gale 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sensitve to the prohibition against original research, but I don't believe the application of a ruler to a scale drawing violates it.  The cited source shows dimensions for several approach spans at 110', and the height is larger than those spans are long. Therefore I added a statement regarding height, but will leave it at that.  Kablammo 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the road surface was at about 830' above sea level and the water surface was about 725' above sea level (depending somewhat on river level, which has been unseasonably low due to drought).  News reports said that the school bus had fallen 40'; I'm guessing that some of the the cars in the river first fell along with the road surface, and then fell off as it descended, or perhaps when the bridge hit the ground.  I also heard that some people swam out of their cars and were relatively unscathed.  Their appears to be a wide spectrum of experiences among the survivors and deceased.--Appraiser 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The ACE gives dimensions as elevation of low steel, vertical clearance at pool stage, and clearance at high water, which are consistent with and also found on the contract plans.  Corps profile does not show elevation of deck (which is unimportant for navigation purposes).  Kablammo 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conclusion: ACE drawing says pool level is 720' above sea level (asl), with 1929 high-water at 727' asl.  Low steel is at 785' asl.  Does "low steel to road deck" of 45' seem reasonable?--Appraiser 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As the vertical clearance to pool elevations agree, this is likely accurate.  The bridge plans may use a more conservative High Water elevation, and the ACOE may be referring to an annual average HW elevation versus bridge plans referring to an all-time HW elevation.  The truss diagram from the report referenced above shows a dimension on page 1-3 (Figure 1.2) which is likely from a copy of the original plans and the height of the truss at the center of the main span appears to be 36' at L13.  Deck appears to be 3'+/- above upper members of truss. above Change in the guardrails, barriers, and pavement thicknesses are not significant to these dimensions, and have no relevance to the deck height above water. Badsongninja 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, on all counts.  Total depth of deck structure and pavement is unknown (although pavement depth may be available); detail drawings would be needed.  (The fatigue report does contain a cross-section of the deck truss structure, figure 3.6 at page 64 of the .pdf but has few dimensions.)  Superstructure elements are relevant only to ensure that any measurements are being taken from pavement level, not from guardrails, curbs, or median barriers. 36' depth of main truss is at midspan; it is more at measurement point for "low steel" above channel from which 64' clearance was measured. Kablammo 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems very confusing, but you seem to have figured it out. Please feel free to include whatever dimensions people would be interested in reading about.  They probably want to know how far these people fell, the depth of the river. Given how the heights and other dimensiuons change over the years and the variations between reliable sources, I think a referenced section explaining what you posted above, Kablammo, would be warranted. That way, people can pick and choose the dimensions important to them for the time period they are interested. Good work. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deck height importance?

message: There are some numbers here and in the news which don't quite make sense. There are confirmed 4 casualties and 8 (down from 30) people missing. Yet the Star Tribune and AP report that "Dozens of cars plummeted more than 60 feet into the Mississippi River". The article currently states "The bridge's collapse sent more than 50 vehicles, their occupants and several construction workers into the river or to its banks." Is the assumption here that most of the people in the "dozens" of cars survived, or do we expect the casualty numbers to grow way beyond the 12 known dead and missing people. Some clarification might be useful. The article might need to say "The bridge's collapse sent more than 50 vehicles, their occupants and several construction workers into the river or to its banks, although the vast majority of these people survived". I understand there's no source for this right now, but this article, and the news reports, are inconsistent at this point. Simon12 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, all news sources seem to be giving different information.  I know for a fact that one of the lead officials (I forgot her name) has repeatedly said that although four are confirmed dead, she will not be issuing any conclusive figures until the recovery efforts are complete.  In my opinion, that was a very wise comment on her part...she chose to remain silent.  The last I heard was that four are confirmed dead, eight are missing, and 79 are injured; however, the report was unofficial. MplsNarco 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some new reports are still reporting 30 as missing, so, if that's the case, then there's much less of an issue. I'd request someone to update the article to reflect that the number of missing could be up to 30. Simon12 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty numbers not making sense 

message: Someone added this as an HTML comment about the 1989 soil study. I took it out.
:This deals with a different bridge** In response, then Governor Rudy Perpich ordered a soil study at the north end of the Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Minnesota River to see if the two previously barricaded lanes could be opened to traffic.
Hey, do we have anybody on the ground at the U of Minn? It would be nice if somebody could nicely contact Patricia Cavanaugh about our Wikipedia article. She seems to have studied the entire history of the Interstate system there. Sadly, the reporter who wrote the story, Dennis Cassano, died of cancer (you can find his obit at the Trib).--SallyForth123 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the part about the $100,000 to $200,000 soil study at the north end of the Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Minnesota River to see if two barricaded lanes can be opened to traffic. The news article also discusses "Legislators representing south Minneapolis oppose routing options for the rebuilt freeway that would wipe out several hundred homes." Does the Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge extend over the Minnesota River? If so, then the information should be removed from the article. If not, then the Perpich orders study of closed I-35W bridge lanes article mistook Minnesota for Mississippi and the 1989 referenced information is fine. Someone please confirm this. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source  clearly refers to the Minnesota River bridge.  The Star Tribune cite is taken from fn 61.  The section is being deleted.  Kablammo 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirmed via Mapquest that the I-35W crosses the the Minnesota River just west of Black Dog lake and at the southern part of Minneapolis. There is no reason to delete the entire section. Just delete the sentences attached to the Perpich orders study of closed I-35W bridge lanes reference. -- Jreferee (Talk) 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at page 77 of the Cavanaugh study.  It clearly refers to opening the unused two lanes of the Minnesota River bridge, which is the only bridge over "the river" south of 494 and between 494 and county road 42.  This is not the same bridge.  Read the entire section which makes it even more clear.  (Page 69 specifically refers to the unused third lanes added to the Minnesota River bridge as part of a redecking project.) Kablammo 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kablammo. You and I agree that the 1989 news article referes to to the I-35W crossing the the Minnesota River, not the Mississippi river, and the information from that 1989 news paper article should be removed from the Wikipedia I-35W Mississippi River bridge article. I'm unsure what you are trying to get at. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I removed, so we're agreed.  Thanks.  Kablammo 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different bridge? 

message: Please use this thread to add potential rReliable source material that may be used in the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The "house of cards" explanation for why the whole bridge can quickly fail should be covered in the article. See  Canuckle 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent summary including some conjecture on the failure .  Badsongninja 17:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS|Reliable source]] information for article 

message: Please be careful when editing the article of this and all other current events, to keep it always reading as an encyclopedia article.  This means that it should be kept in a style which makes sense regardless of when it's being read.  Things like "people are still missing", or "the cause is under investigation" serve to lock the article into a specific time frame or reference.  This is especially important because we never know when a mirror or search engine will take a snapshot of the article for their use.  kmccoy (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when text is added, do not add it in between previous text and the footnote reference, unless the footnote actually supports your addition.  Kablammo 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I love being dismissed as irrelevant! You may want to re-read my original statement, especially the part about never knowing when a mirror or search engine will take a snapshot.  You may also want to read the manual of style. Seriously, it's so much more fun here on Wikipedia when people are *pleasant*, rather than condescending. kmccoy (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris - I have to agree with kmccoy as I really do not understand your comment. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section, time phrasing, and mirrors 

message: The LOCATION section should be revised to read "The bridge is one of the two major river crossings of I-35W in Minnesota..." as there are other river crossings of I-35W in Texas. Badsongninja 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Kablammo 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/02/commercecosts/ - facts that should probably go in. Rail not affected much, can be diverted. Estimated additonal trucking costs =  $120,000 a day. And about 1.5 million to two million tons of goods are sent by barge through the lock in the vicinity of the collapse. Worth adding to the article? -Ravedave 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant and worth mention.  Kablammo 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm feelin lazy, wanna add it? Also the govnr also has ordered the inspection of all similar bridges  -Ravedave 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not tonight, maybe tomorrow.  Kablammo 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  economic impact 

message: * In June 1996, whitewater enthusiasts proposed a paddle-sports park on the river's east bank between Stone Arch Bridge and the I-35W bridge.Nelson, Tim. (June 12 1996) St. Paul Pioneer Press Churning up the river. Visions of an urban paddle-sports park could bring white water to the Mississippi. Section: Metro; Page 1B.
*:I initially added that along with everything else I found. I thought it might lead to something of interest. You were right to remove it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more trivia removed 

message: When this happened, a train was hit. Sources are FOX News AND CNN Headline News. The train was pinned by the collapsing bridge. 205.240.144.180 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure we should call that "a train".  It was just a collection of railroad cars sitting on a spur track.  There was no locomotive attached to them. T-bonham 08:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In the pix here, a tank car and a hopper car is seen, the hopper car is crushed by the derbis of the bridge. 205.240.144.180 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three train cars were crushed - two hopper cars and one tanker car, all unmanned. The tanker car was empty and the two hopper cars contained plastic pellets or some such thing. Natalie 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh those poor plastic pellets!  Oh the humanity of it! ... Seriously, not worth mentioning. 38.105.193.11 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, there was some concern that the train cars might have had hazardous material in them. Also, since it's being misunderstood as a fully-functioning train, I'd say it's worth mentioning just so people don't pop up asking "What about the train that got crushed?" No moments of silence for plastic pellets, for sure. Natalie 03:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Unoccupied railroad cars were crushed" would seem to be a good way to go. No sense in getting everyone more upset. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train Wreck Seen... 

message: This bridge shared the same mile (1.6 km) of the Mississippi riverbed as two of Minneapolis' other spectacular catastrophes: the collapse of the Hennepin Island tunnel in 1869 and the explosion of the Washburn "A" Mill in 1878.
"Same mile". How interesting. 100 years earlier than this bridge collapse. (If you do not get my drift: that means that they really do not have very much to do with each other. It is just a coincidence. Fascinating.)
If I could make that "same mile" sentence even shorter, I would. Their relationship with this one is tenuous at best. They have their own articles and need no explanation here. I already moved the supporting references over to those articles, where they belong. Keep this article focus on the BRIDGE. Not on the falls. If you can argue that something else is related to this bridge, great. But if you have interesting details about something that we have an article on, put it over THERE, not here.--SallyForth123 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these references are extremely brief and provide helpful historical context to both the site and the bridge collapse. Gwen Gale 06:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be brief in page space, but they are CONFUSING. This story already confusing enough. You got three different dam/locks involved (Upper and Lower St. Ant and Dam #1), you got views of the bridge from all directions that all look the same because the cityscape is monotonous.  The collapse is an ongoing story of national importance. You do the reader a favor to stay focused. Or else the reader stops and asks: "Why are they telling me THIS now?" Stay focused. If you want to mention "same mile", OK, fine. But leave it at that because it is just a barely-notable coincidence. You want to go work on those other articles, please do. I just did. And NO FOOTNOTES for trivial coincidences!--SallyForth123 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find it confusing at all. Cheers. Gwen Gale 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about one sentence under the "Location" heading. This is a brief mention of prior historic events around the area, not an unrelated attention-grabbing article hijacking. Since we are working on an article that concerns a widely-noticed current event, we have a responsibility to reference every unique assertion in order to maintain a high quality work. It's far better to have too many references than too few. Many references will become consolidated in the future, once the rapid editing of this article subsides. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnotes are a cue: they tell the read that something is important and needs to be supported. When you footnote something like the "same mile" assertion, you end up throwing some percentage of your readers off track by trying to suggest that the "same mile" assertion is of any importance. The "same mile" assertion should be made as briefly as possible. It should not result in two more footnotes because it is not very important. It certainly is not germane to the story of the bridge or its demise. Or the rest of the disaster. It is just a tiny bit of color. The "same mile" assertion could certainly never lead to an accusation of libel. The "same mile" assertion is self-evident, and so it does not need supporting material.--SallyForth123 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Every assertion of fact requires supporting material. WP:A, after all...  Thanatosimii 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the unstable nature of the wiki collaborative platform, Wikipedia has a stricter policy on footnotes than most print sources. While neither footnote is really of any importance, the statements they reference are unique assertions and must be verified. I don't think that these notes are a noticeable inconvenience to the reader. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sally. This article is about the bridge, not the bridge collapse. Also, people outside of the area do not know that the I-35W Mississippi River bridge was not located in some pristine area. The article should convey this in some way. In particular, the area of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge is in a highly complex, industrial area that has been growing outward from Saint Anthony Falls since the 1830s. That river has been carrying and dumping industrial sediments into the area beneath the I-35W Mississippi River bridge for 170+ years. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge article should provide this contextual background. The Hennepin Island tunnel collapsed in 1869 because the thin layer of limestone above the riverbeds soft sandstone broke. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge was placed in connection with that same thin-layered-limestone riverbed and it too collapsed. Even if that was not the cause, it is a connection that would be something people would be interested in reading about. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse along with the Hennepin Island tunnel collapse and the Washburn "A" Mill explosion in 1878 helps show that this is a troubled area and gives context to the I-35W Mississippi River bridge article. In the 1960s, the I-35W Mississippi River bridge was placed on top of soil that was churned over and over by others for 100 years prior. That soil had long term toxic chemicals dumped into it for many years. The article should include one to three sentences to give a sense of the area in which this bridge is located in the context of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other disasters