Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 3

message: Can someone link the "at-grade" in the "Alternate routes" section to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-grade?  I had no idea what this term was :-)
I'll try. -Jason ost 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already did. -Jason ost 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit Requests by Non-Account Holders 

message: The north support is north-WEST of the U, and the south support is north-EAST of The Dome. This information should be corrected in the article.
:Yes, that did not make sense when I saw it and I am just looking at a map now. The north bank of the bridge was west and a bit to the south of the university campus. Please make the changes if you are familiar with the area. --Justanother 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I had the wrong campus. NW is fine. --Justanother 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location incorrect 

message: Now that the immediacy of the event is behind us, I'd like to try to unprotect the article.  I'll unprotect it in a few minutes, barring any serious reason not to, and I'll keep an eye on it for a while to see if things are good. kmccoy (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can keep an eye on it, give it a try. I'm coming off lunch break, so I can't keep an eye on it, but go for it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: because this is an encylcopedia, not a news agency or DOT. However, I think some of the information is very relevant, such as the fact that this bridge carried a significant amount of traffic into downtown and to a big part of the U of M campus. This is already seriously affecting traffic in the Twin Cities, which already has a severe congestion problem, and will continue to affect driving patterns and traffic for possibly years. What do people think of renaming the section "Effect on traffic patterns" or something similar and rewriting it in terms of long-term effect, with a lesser emphasis on where people should be driving instead? Natalie 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I don't think we have any right or obligation to give people sources for alternate routes.  They can find this information anywhere else on the internet.  However, renaming the section and writing about how current traffic patterns are being affected would be nice.  Perhaps once the bridge is rebuilt, then we can cite certain things, such as "The collapse forced many motorists to use Highway 280 for the duration of the cleanup and reconstruction..."  Something to that effect later on down the road. MplsNarco 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The alternate routes section is problematic 

message: When we use jargon like pile, pylon, abutment, span, arch, etc., please be sure to wikify the term. I noticed that "riverbank" currently points to the California city, but I will probably fix that and, if needed, add a disambiguation page. That is one of the good things about hyperlinking: you  can talk up to the reader and not spend so much time explaining this jargon.--SallyForth123 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not jargon terms, but many are technical in nature and not used in daily discussions other than in construction-related industries.  "Section Loss" is a reference to a reduction in (cross-sectional) area of a structural component, usually considered in context of corrosion, wear due to cyclic loading, etc.  This is significant as the ability of a structural component to carry load is related to the area of the component that load can be transferred through (along with many other factors).  Routine design practice is to provide structural components oversized from what they are required to carry, to allow for section loss amongst other distresses and for excessive loads.  Protection from, design for, and concern over corrosion is certainly a regular consideration for design of roadway structures in Minnesota. Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Some common civil engineering terms can be found here.  Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: The I-35W bridge was never called St. Anthony Bridge. The only pre-collapse information about St. Anthony Bridge states "The Model Railroad Club built ... a stone arch bridge that replicates the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis." (December 4, 1987) and "Minneapolis Sky Line" is a nearly all blue painting by Enid Knowles, with the arching St. Anthony Bridge the unifying element. (February 11, 2001). Google images show no such bridge. The I-35W does not have such arches or stones. The I-35W is a few bridges away from St. Anthony Falls. Until there is consensus to add St. Anthony Bridge" to the article, please work to keep this incorrect information out of the article. Thank You. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, St Anthony Bridge either refers to either the Third Avenue Bridge or Stone Arch Bridge. BeeArkKey 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some news media claim it was originally known as the St. Anthony Bridge, although they could be wrong. The Third Avenue Bridge was origally known as the St. Anthony Falls Bridge. Franklin Avenue Bridge. Further upstream, the Camden Bridge is sometimes informally called the St. Anthony Parkway Bridge. In any case, it isn't always necessary to use the official name; the Franklin Avenue Bridge further downstream has an official name that I've never heard anybody use before. Eco84 | Talk 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Anthony Bridge 

message: Apparently, the video of the bridge collapsing was taken by a security camera at the lock and dam control house.  Could anyone confirm whether or not the camera belonged to the Army Corps of Engineers?  If it did, then the video is in the public domain and we can include it freely on the web page -- once we can find a source for it that isn't watermarked with CNN or AP.  kmccoy (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This AP article: CNN Gets Beat on Video of Collapse clearly attributes the video to the Corps, with details. See also this link. And this. I saw an uncropped version on YouTube and the image had "LWR4" on it. Maybe that is the camera ID.--SallyForth123 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this the Youtube video you are looking for? Chris! my talk 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of bridge collapse 

message: http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_213191448.html
"Those confirmed killed in the collapse are Julia Blackhawk, 32, of Savage, Minn.; Patrick Holmes, 36, of Mounds View, Minn.; Artemio Trinidad-Mena, 29, of Minneapolis; and Sherry Engebretsen, 60, of Shoreview, Minn."
:I dynamic linked the names to see how long it takes for someone to create Wikipedia articles on them. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the appropriate way to handle the victims is not by separate articles, but in this one, unless they otherwise meet the criteria for notability.  Kablammo 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP1E. Cover the event first. For monitoring purposes, you may want to redirect victims' names here in the meantime. Canuckle 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I redirected the victims' names, I'd like a few more responsible editors to watchlist them, please. Thanks. Grandmasterka 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart move, Grandmasterka. I wish I had thought of that and its obvious where your name comes from. As each name victim name comes up, please feel free to redirect it to I-35W Mississippi River bridge. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Pschemp, I reverted your edit as there are only 4 confirmed deaths at the moment, I don't think the article is at risk. Users simply need to be vigilant for such additions. Zidel333 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the names should be in teh article, or at least linked to a sepeate list that details the confirmed dead ala Virginia Tech Massacre. Zidel333 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Too early? How so? If there are sources, it should be added. Zidel333 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting 24 hours out of respect and to make sure the sources have it right should be done. Encyclopedias are written in hindsight, they are not news articles. pschemp | talk 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The attitude of "if there's a source, it should be in the article" is covered in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  I don't really think that the names should be in the article, either, though I won't edit them out myself.  kmccoy (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think that adding the list of the recenlty decesaed is "Indiscriminate information"; it is perfectly valid and should be in the article. The reverting here is becoming ridiculous. Zidel333 14:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I will. Tomj 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Names of people killed are directly relevant and are not "indiscriminate". They should be here until the length of the list becomes a problem and then it can be forked off. Canuckle 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victim Names are filtering in...