Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge

message: Is there a reason that the article title is I-35W Mississippi River bridge and not ... River Bridge with bridge's b being a capital letter?
articles like the golden gate bridge and even the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge which replaced the Mississippi river bridge have all caps. I just wanted to know if there was a reason of if we should change it --210.157.252.242 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it had a name, as such, prior to the collapse. It probably had an ID number, but that seems like needless detail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it should be called Interstate 35W Mississippi River Bridge instead of the I-35W, as most bridges say Interstate instead. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a redirect from one to the other could be done. You start to get into the "common names" issue here. Very few news reports would have said "Interstate" repeatedly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know many news organizations referred to it as the I-35W Bridge JayJayWhat did I do? 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title  

message: This firm seems to be advertising their services at least twice within this article pretty blatantly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.212.172 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to a particular engineering firm twice within the article (advertising) 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Image-I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95) edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 1, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-08-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Image-I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95) edit.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Is there any substance to claims (made at black ice) that the collapse was encouraged by either the application of de-icing chemicals, or even by a heating system used to prevent icing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the NTSB report when it was added earlier, and it explicitly says  (emphasis mine). Looking at the history of black ice I think it's correct to leave the information about the de-icing system there, but to remove speculation about the cause of the collapse, unless (like it is here) it's followed up with clarification that it was ultimately held blameless. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrosion, collapse and de-icing? 

message: Some days ago I ran across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I've been wondering whether this bias could also be present in this article...
The hindsight bias delineates that in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, foreseeable and/or inevitable an event is perceived, and obviously a study has found it even in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/accidents:
doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7
In this respect I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, and whether the disaster is presented as more foreseeable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against the disaster.
Obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective focusing on information that argue FOR the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that argued AGAINST the event (or: for another outcome), which then, naturally, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeablitity...
So I wondered whether this article might be affected by hindsight bias as well and should be therefore be checked again for this?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:1464:C020:D8B8:34B3 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindsight bias in this article? 

message: The bridge is 1/2 mile downstream from St. Anthony falls.
The bridge is a little downstream from the Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. The dam was constructed in 1895 solely for the purpose of hydroelectric generation using part of the rapid descent of the river from below the falls to below the Ford dam. The dam was rebuilt in 1956 with locks added. Seems to be a common idea there was a falls at this location, but there never was.
BudKey (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "across the Saint Anthony Falls" 

message: The archive link (and the original link) for citation 74 (Thompson, Cheryl A. (August 17, 2007). "Calm, Steady Hospital Care Shines During Bridge Disaster". Minnesota Hospital Association.) is dead. There needs to be an alternative source for this information. :3 F4U (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead archive link