Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels/Archive 2

message: I recently put Clifton Suspension Bridge up as a candidate for good article status. It failed for a variety of reasons including "There is very little discussion on the process of the bridge's construction." Would anyone from this project be willing/able to take a look and help to improve the article?— Rod talk 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have information on this and could do it, but it won't be for a couple of weeks as I'm away from home all next week and otherwise fairly busy anyway. -- Kvetner 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clifton Suspension Bridge 

message: We should probably have an article about bridge bearings.  I don't think a lot of people realize that bridges have bearings in order to accommodate for expansion and contraction.  Another relevant point is that if a bridge bearing fails, it could transfer stresses into the structure.  This article from indystar.com says that there was corrosion in the bearings of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge.  It's pretty early for us to speculate, and that would be original research anyway, but having an article here would contribute some background knowledge.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge bearings 

message: I posted the following in talk re recent bridge disaster. Above user (thanks!) suggested I could raise the issue here. I'm not an expert on this subject, but have some knowledge and interest (and I'm always impressed when driving under the Clifton Suspension Bridge), and the following is just a suggestion...
"I'd like to see a single, basic article (perhaps there is one?) (or clear links, please) devoted to, or informing casual readers about, different types of bridge construction e.g. suspension, arch-girder, pontoon, cable-stayed (is that same as suspension?). A recent BBC programme in the UK had detailed report on number of wires (detected by sound) that snap almost by the minute within the average large cable of suspension bridge - frightening, fresh, fascinating and authoritative. TV reports (in the UK) had State governor claiming this was a unique construction - I don't want Wiki to get too far into breaking news... but 'we' should have an article clarifying, or links if it's there already, please." - Tony in Devon 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction and safety of different types of bridges 

message: Muscatine High Bridge was a Mississippi River bridge at Muscatine, Iowa. It was removed after the Norbert F. Beckey Bridge opened in 1972. I find very little on the net, but it too suffered a collapse in 1956, as this link to the Cities Times shows. To say the least, an article on this bridge is definitely wanted. --Ace Telephone 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article is definitely warranted, but it may be a stub for a long time until offline references are consulted, cited and included in Wikipedia. :-) —Rob (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muscatine High Bridge 

message: There is currently a medium-length article on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, most of which is devoted to its demise.  Plans are underway to quickly (16 months) replace the bridge with a new bridge.  Undoubtably, there will be pictures of the construction and paragraphs about safety features, political considerations, financing, etc.  I think it will probably be named after some politician and it will also become a robust article in its own right.  I just looked at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, and obviously the article attempts to cover both topics - the failed bridge and the modern one in the same location.  Would it not make sense to have separate articles for the distinct structures that happen to occupy the same real estate at different times?  For example Quest Field resides where the Kingdome was before it was razed.--Appraiser 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combination article or separate articles? 

message: Does the Project have an naming standard for articles? The reason for the question is based on that some articles names ends with a fixed link suffix and other end with a Bridge suffix, e.g.Great Belt Fixed Link and Fehmarn Belt bridge.
Is the suffix Fixed Link only used when it is a combination of tunnels and bridges?
This is just my thoughts, any reply is welcome. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming standards 

message: I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. --NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Pulaski Skyway]] 

message: In the article Bedell Covered Bridge, I've placed both the Bridge Disasters and the Demolished Bridges categories, being unsure which is more appropriate for this structure.  The bridge was, in all cases, wiped out by a natural event, so I'm leaning toward Disasters, but that seems to over-state the situation.  As far as I've been able to find out, no one was ever hurt, let alone killed, in these events, yet the bridge is gone.  Another way to put it is that the bridge didn't collapse due to some artificial failure: no design flaw, no implementation or inspection trouble, yet the natural world destroyed it every time they rebuilt it.  So which category makes more sense? - Denimadept 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it was not rebuilt after the 1979 disaster, and, given that, looking at a map of the area, there are enough alternate routes to make reconstruction unnecessary from a strictly transportation management standpoint, I would tend to go with Demolished Bridges. Had it been rebuilt for any reason other than heritage preservation, it would have been another story. Blanchardb 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster or Demolished? 

message: Some of the arches that appear in the list by length are NOT ACTUALLY ARCHES.
They are splendid examples of ARCH-SHAPED TRUSS (as is clearly explained in the article "truss arch bridge" in the Wikipedia).
For example: 
Delaware turnpike toll bridge,
Bridge of Las Americas,
Laviolette bridge,
Julien Dubuque bridge,
Bob Cummings Trail Bridge,
Sagamore Bridge,
Banghwa bridge,
All of this should be remove from the list of arches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis martin-tereso (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARCH BRIDGES ? 

message: Some bridge articles use Geolinks to point at map services.  The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on.  Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues.  I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps.  (SEWilco 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolinks-coord Issues 

message: Greetings!  I found myself monitoring Covered bridge some time back, and today looked at the code for .  I realized it was using nonstandard infobox code and wrote an update (currently at User:Huntster/Sandbox/2, plus new documentation) but thought I'd write a blurb here to see if there was any opposition.  Also, I would like to rename to  rather than retain its current nonstandard name.  To maintain appearances, I'd also like to rewrite the  code and documentation as well.  Go or no go? -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template code update 

message: :I'm finding it difficult to find the location of this bridge.  Both Yahoo and Google Maps have poor map imagry in that area. But delete a bridge???  Not on your life!  The article needs polishing, no lie, but not deletion. - Denimadept 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Alloa Swing Bridge 

message: We need a portal for bridges. What should it contain? Blanchardb 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard you volunteered.  Congratulations. :-D - Denimadept 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. The portal is up and running now, but it still needs attention. We need a Featured Article (or at the very least a Good Article) to put on the portal for December. We also need to feature a picture and a bio. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need an admin to add  to . --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I'm tempted to add a WikiBridges infobox template to Bifröst.  What do y'all think?  I figure the overall length and mainspan length would be "indeterminate".  "Crosses", I'm a bit unclear on, location would be "everywhere"... - Denimadept 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd avoid adding the infobox to mythological or fictional items unless the parameters were much more clearly defined.  In this case, I think it would be a case of adding the Infobox simply for the sake of adding it.  It would really add no value to the article itself, which is the primary justification for infobox use. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the infobox should be reserved for actual bridges, not metaphorical ones.  Cacophony 07:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temptation 

message: I encountered some 1890s photos of Mississippi River bridges.  All I have is the photos and captions, so I mention them in case someone currently knows more details.  I added the photos to the articles for the bridges which seem to be at the same location.  The names of those articles follow.  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The one below the Stone Arch Bridge looks like the old 10th Avenue Bridge.  This was the one that carried 10th Avenue South across the river to 6th Avenue Southeast, and is not to be confused with the current 10th Avenue Bridge (which connects Cedar Avenue to 10th Avenue Southeast).  This page at the Minneapolis Riverfront Bridges site gives some history.  It was also known as the Lower Bridge, and was demolished in 1943.  There's still a pier in the river that's visible from the Stone Arch Bridge.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  So that's the origin of the lonesome pier in :Image:I-35W steel in Mississippi 20070801.JPG.  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery historical Mississippi bridges 

message: Its article needs development, can anyone here help?  The Old Blenheim Bridge has perhaps the longest span of any covered bridge in the U.S., and is a National Historic Landmark in New York State. I and others are trying to get all List of National Historic Landmarks in New York up to Featured List quality, but no one involved otherwise knows/writes about bridges.  Bridge infobox set up but mostly empty.  Sources identified and linked to article.  Thanks for considering... doncram (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge for the longest. - Denimadept (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wait, is that  in a single span, or in multiple spans? - Denimadept (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a single span bridge, 232 total feet long, with a single span of 210 feet or so (various measurements disagree).  Bridge infobox development from the article's several technical sources would be helpful.  Thanks for the pointer to the Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge, I've added that as a "See Also" to the article. doncram (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so the CW bridge has a larger total length, but not a larger single span length.  Fair enough. - Denimadept (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Blenheim Bridge covered bridge infobox and writing 

message: I just noticed that  has a parameter for putting in National Register of Historic Places info. This would be great if the bridge infobox could do the same, so that we don't have multiple infoboxes in an article, or missing relevant info. Murderbike (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Geoboxes for Bridges, above. - Denimadept (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Does it make sense for a bridge to be described as a "reinforced-concrete through truss bridge"? Not being a bridge guy, I couldn't really figure out what this meant specifically. Murderbike (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would describe a bridge which is (a) made of reinforced concrete, (b) a truss bridge, and (c) is a through-truss, which means that the roadway sits in between the two trusses and that there are overhead connections between the trusses. Reinforced concrete trusses are uncommon, and you'd be very unlikely to see one built today. -- Kvetner (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where'd you see this, Murderbike? - Denimadept (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the McMillin Bridge, which I should have an article for pretty soon. It's right here. Murderbike (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and thanks for the clarification! Murderbike (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting stuff!  Are you going to handle the former rail/pedestrian bridge next to it also? - Denimadept (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't planned on it. I'm mostly concerned with items on the National Register of Historic Places, and I just got book that's gonna help me do about 10 bridges. So, I probably won't bother with non-NRHP bridges. I'll take a picture of it though when I go out there, in case someone else wants to do the article. Murderbike (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Working on it.  Give me a few minutes... - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  You did pretty well, given that there's no picture.  Really could use a picture, but you know that. - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll probably get out there next week. One thing, the bridge infobox makes it all look really wonky, and kind of just repeats info that's in the text, without providing anything new. Would anyone care if I removed it? Murderbike (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the infobox is required.  We've talked in the past about finding a way to combine the infobox bridge with the infobox NRHP but nothing came of it. - Denimadept (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm not gonna complain too much, but I'm curious as to WHAT requires the infobox. Featured Articles don't have to have an infobox, what is it that says a bridge does? Murderbike (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a standard place to put all the regular data.  See the article this is a talk-page for.  What featured bridge-related articles don't have the infobox? - Denimadept (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't specifying a Featured bridge, just FAs in general. In my experience, they aren't generally required, and sometimes discouraged. Murderbike (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the infobox useful because I can, in theory, look there for all the regular basic information about a bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've edited the McMillin Bridge article to refer to a half-through truss, which is what it actually is - a through truss has bracing above the roadway. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a couple photos I took yesterday if those who were curious want to see the bridge. Murderbike (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge question 

message: I just went looking for the article on this bridge.  Y'know, the bridge whose image decorates every  template?  That bridge?  I couldn't find it!  Is there no English version of this article?  Is there a non-English version of this article?? - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is hiding under another name, I can find no mention of "Ponte Romana Sertã" amongst any Wikipedia language project. Very curious. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponte Romana Sertã? 

message: I have added a discussion to this bridge, as there appears to be more than one, thought I'd draw your attention to it here...
GrahamHardy (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rigolets Pass Bridge]] 

message: I added the infobox and an 1916 photo to San Diego's Cabrillo Bridge.  The description indicates there's now a highway underneath.  If someone is near Balboa Park, perhaps a more recent photo and info can be provided.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I located the bridge.  Please check my coords. - Denimadept (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's it.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot.  Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  For that matter, Balboa Park needs some work.  We don't have an article for the Museum of Man?  Well, that's off topic for this group, although on topic for someone visiting the bridge.  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabrillo Bridge in San Diego 

message: Another editor has nominated several bridges in Slovenia for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Slovenia if you would like to comment on the nominated articles. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why people do this AfD thing when an article hasn't had time to get fleshed out.  All the articles listed at this time were only created 4 days ago.  I'll grant that they should have been created with more information, but I will not grant that they'll never improve. - Denimadept (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I just adapted something I wrote on that AfD page to this one.  Comments? - Denimadept (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenian bridges at AfD 

message: I have decided to make a list of bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places. It will have to be split (presumably by state) because otherwise the list is too big. User:NE2/NRHP bridges will be the general format, which I automatically generated from the downloadable database. In addition to obvious formatting issues (which should be pretty easy to fix using AWB), non-bridges/tunnels that happen to include "bridge", "tunnel", or "viaduct" will have to be removed, and those that don't include one of those words will have to be added. I'd also like to add the year the bridge was built if possible, though that will be a lot harder. Does this look like a good idea, and are there any suggestions? (cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) --NE2 10:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I'd be more interested in resolving the "multiple infobox" issue.  Making a place where the intersection of "NHRP" and "bridge" is listed isn't bad, though. - Denimadept (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I really like the column of small images.  Did you get that idea from the Danube list? - Denimadept (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it from List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. --NE2 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Minnesota NHL list got that format from the NY NHL list. :)  By the way, i responded to NE2's similar posting to Talk page of WP:NRHP, and was involved in discussing the "test case" at its talk page.  There are, I thought, some big open issues, like how the List of NRHP bridges in Oregon should relate to List of bridges in the United States#Oregon and List of tunnels in the United States#Oregon, or if there should better just be List of bridges in Oregon including all the NRHP ones, etc.  I was surprised to see NE2's posting below, which was posted also to WP:NRHP.  It is impressive, i certainly grant that. doncram (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of bridges on the NHRP 

message: All of the links on Template:NRHP bridges are now blue, and the majority of bridges have full information. (Thanks very much to Elkman, who wrote a script to convert UTM to lat/long.) There are a few caveats:
*I started wikifying the "type" column, but stopped after a while because it was taking a long time and I wasn't always sure what the terms meant.
*It may be useful to list what goes over and under the bridge, which I did on the Oregon list.
*It may also be useful to verify and adjust the coordinates; for instance Pittsburgh's Three Sisters are misaligned.
*Most errors in the NRHP data, such as typos, have not been fixed.
--NE2 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of bridges on the NRHP are done 

message: Should this really exist separately from :Category:Bridges? --NE2 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more odd to me is that "Bridges" is a subcat of "Bridge".  These certainly need to be combined into a unified category, probably with "Bridges" being the main one...everything in "Bridge" seems like it could easily be moved elsewhere, either existing or new. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and a whole bunch of stuff I'm aware of was moved from Bridges to Bridge yesterday.  Where was this discussed? - Denimadept (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done by User:Sam, who is also an admin. After a quick review of his contributions, I cannot see any discussion which took place prior to these moves, which makes it even more puzzling why such significant changes were made.  If this issue is to be pursued, I'd suggest that someone needs to speak with him regarding these edits, though one would be within their rights to go back and return things to the way they were.  Personally, I rather strongly dislike these changes, since they do nothing to clarify things. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just now saw this discussion. Yes, I split the category, and did so after discussing the matter at CFD.  The discussion was here.  What I was doing was very similar to how several other categories are arranges, for example :Category:Film and :Category:Films. Sorry, I should have probably mentioned it here as well, but someone could have left a not on my talk page... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Bridge]] 

message: I have written an article about the Cogan House Covered Bridge, which is on the NRHP and is up for Peer Review here. I would appreciate any feedback from those more in the know on bridges as I plan to take this WP:FAC next. Thanks, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My first impression is: I'm tempted to add  to your article.  Other than that, it's going to take a while to read that!  Wow, and a lot of refs, too. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Correction: there's a Geobox Bridge?  oooooooo, nevermind! - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I do like Geobox Bridge. Hope you can find the time to read it and comment - any feedback is appreciated. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After some very helpful PR comments (thanks to all who chimed in) the article is now at FAC. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now is FA - thanks again to everyone who helped, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: Is there an area on the project page (that I probably overlooked) where I can add new articles/stubs? I forgot to tag Connecticut Avenue Bridge over Klingle Valley when creating it, but it's done now. I looked through :Category:Bridges in Washington, D.C. and tagged some articles that have been around for a while: Charles C. Glover Memorial Bridge, Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Anacostia Railroad Bridge, Amtrak Railroad Anacostia Bridge, Benning Bridge, and New York Avenue Bridge. APK yada yada 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a place where new bridge-related articles show up, but I don't know what it is off-hand.  I added the US bridge stub template for Connecticut Ave Bridge article you mentioned. - Denimadept (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. APK yada yada 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Compared to San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, Pulaski Skyway, and Cogan House Covered Bridge, BP Pedestrian Bridge is extremely short.  I am wondering if anyone knows architecture, bridge, metalwork or engineering articles that describe the bridge.  I am not a bridge guy, but I hoped to bring it to FAC in the future.  Any advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[BP Pedestrian Bridge]] future FA 

message: (moved to separate discussion) By the way, in the statement that the bridge is built to highway standards, do you guys know what that means?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That has to do with the loads this structure can support. The article says it has been designed to withstand a full load of pedestrians, that is, wall-to-wall congestion. Think of the structure that collapsed in a Kansas City hotel in the 80's under the weight of all the people standing on it. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[BP Pedestrian Bridge]] Q2 

message: We've found some issues with classification of bridges by type. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil engineering#Issues with bridge types for discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties with bridge types 

message: Due to the difficulty of finding an adequate spot from which to take a picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge, I took one from more than two miles away, and the result is what it is. To get a better picture, one would have to get on a private boat. Does anyone in Montreal ever sail on the Lac des Deux Montagnes? If so, a better picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge would be appreciated. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not willing to charter a boat?  Or buy one?  Or swim?  C'mon, how committed are you? :-DDDD  - Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge picture: [[Île aux Tourtes Bridge]] 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge]] 

message: Come visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge 

message: I'm considering starting a new Wiki for structures, similar to Structurae but easier to work on.  This would be about structures, especially including bridges, past, present, and future.  This would include proposed structures, and would likely copy quite a bit from Wikipedia such as templates etcetera.  Is anyone interested in such a project? - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll for interest for new Wiki 

message: Currently, 1501 articles are assigned to this project, of which 162, or 10.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
:{{}}
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Hi, I've added another featured picture to your gallery.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tacoma Narrows Bridge]] 

message: To the List of bridges in the United States, I just added "WikiProject Bridges" template, but I think that indicates the list is a member of the wikiproject, not that it is an article covered by the wikiproject.  I don't see any scoring system here, how many articles are covered by this wikiproject.  Anyhow, how do I add a bridge article or a list of bridges article to the wikiproject?  There are 50 or more bridges lists covering bridges listed on the NRHP in the U.S. to add right now.  Please advise! :) doncram (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, found an example: "WikiProject Bridges article|class=B" for an individual bridge, or "WikiProject Bridges article|class=list" for a list.  I took the liberty of expanding on the brief "Article Template" section of wp:Bridges to make the template easier to find.  Also, still, where/how do you see how many articles are covered by the wikiproject? doncram (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the pages at the bottom of :Category:Bridge articles by quality, in particular Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bridge articles by quality statistics. --NE2 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how tag bridge articles covered by this project? 

message: Would it make sense to include tunnels, or is this best kept to a separate project if people wish to collaborate about them? --NE2 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what looks like a nice article on the topic, with a category.  It might be worthwhile to try their talk page and ask them what they think.  It's certainly a related topic, but is it a subset?  I dunno about that. - Denimadept (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a post on Talk:Tunnel about the apparent tenuous (or perhaps not so tenuous) equation of a tunnel as a bridge. I do see that these two subjects are very closely related, and I wonder if people here would object to tunnels and bridges being combined as one WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels? __meco (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll notice that the topic has come up before.  Let's discuss this with the tunnel people before we ruthlessly Borg them into our collective. - Denimadept (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will also notice that currently, there is no WP:WikiProject Tunnels. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh?  Then you should go create it, then we'll negotiate with you. - Denimadept (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Since there are no organized "tunnel people" there's hardly any point in sitting idle waiting for some to aggregate, is there? Are there any who have reasons not to include tunnels (and hence include the word tunnels in the project name)? __meco (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose a change to "Crossings", to include bridges, tunnels, ferries, fords, pogo sticks, and anything else one can cross with.  Okay, maybe leave out the pogo sticks. "Crossings" would be consistent with the various lists of them. - Denimadept (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both tunnels and bridges have a central element of architecture and structural engineering about them, which may be an important reason for some to be members of this project. Adding ferries would stir up that coherence. __meco (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  So this project would remain under the heading of "civil engineering". - Denimadept (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnels? 

message: Recently, I pointed out that a bridge that crosses the Mississippi in Itasca County, Minnesota is not necessarily notable, given that in that area the Mississippi is just a small stream that can be spanned by a fallen log (okay, maybe not that small). I think any bridge that is notable because of its size would make any other bridge downstream from it inherently notable in most cases. Let's understand: the 18-lane-wide bridge of Ontario Highway 401 over Etobicoke Creek will never become notable on its own unless it collapses. When I'm talking about size, it's mostly length. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was what NE2 was proposing above that there be a set cutoff of 400-500 ft for water crossings, which appears to be what other lists of "notable" bridges are using. While somewhat arbitrary, it would be a convenient and easy rule. --Polaron | Talk 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents

message: There is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakwella Bridge that might be of concern to project members.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notification 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bridge 

message: Please take a look at the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and leave comments at its FAC.  Thank you Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first railway suspension bridge is now at FAC 

message: I am having trouble resolving controveries with references refering to handrails that do not exist in the pictures of the BP Pedestrian Bridge.  I am not a bridge guy and thought you guys might know a little something about this bridge which is the must artistically beautiful bridge I know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 June 2008
:"does not have standard handrails" does not say "does not have handrails".  There's plenty of room for non-standard handrails. :-d  I've revised a bit in the article to fill out the infobox a bit better. - Denimadept (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has tons of images.  What would you mean by non-standard handrails?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two sources about handrails appear to differ.  Reference #5 (the Blair Kamin newspaper review) states, "No handrails to muck things up, just waist-high walls that hold you in."  Reference #13 (Architectural Sheet Metal Expertise) says, "They also designed, fabricated and installed a custom #4 brushed stainless steel handrail on the bridge."  I'm guessing the newspaper architectural review didn't want to call them handrails (in the traditional sense), while the sheet metal guys installed something they're calling a handrail (in a nontraditional sense).  I guess I'd go with saying that there's a non-traditional handrail system.  I didn't check the other references to see if they say anything about handrails -- maybe there's some kind of agreement there.  Given that it's a Frank Gehry design, anything is possible.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might even desribe them as parapets. Most railings will be made with openings. If the structure extends up and forms a wall to keep people from falling off, then it is a parapet. - SCgatorFan (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In UK use, a parapet is any edge barrier on a bridge, whether solid or post-and-rail. A "handrail" is the bar that you actually hold with your hand, like the handrail on most staircases; most bridge parapets don't have a handrail. Describing it as a parapet or balustrade is appropriate. -- Kvetner (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BP Pedestrian Bridge 

message: I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as bridges, tunnels, roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates for linear features 

message: Hi!  Just did a stub on the beautiful Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge in Torrance, CA.  I can't seem to find specs, load limits, etc. since it's out of service.  I thought I should alert you to the entry if anyone's interested in expanding it.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's your idea of a stub, I'd really like to see what you consider a full article!  Let's see, nothing at Structurae.  Looking... - Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on historic RR bridge 

message: I have just become aware of the statement in :Category:Bridges in New York that "For convenience, all bridges in New York State are included in this category. This includes all the bridges that can also be found in the subcategories."  We presently have only two Bridges in X county categories, :Category:Bridges in Orange County, New York and :Category:Bridges in Ulster County, New York. And we have some editors adding a county and state cats to bridge articles.
Is this where we want to go, with each bridge assigned to one or more counties, and one or more states? Or should we exclude a county cat breakdown from the duplicate cat situation, on the grounds that, when all of the county cats are in place, the child cats will exhaustively contain all articles that belong in the parent State cat? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, there is something similar going on in River articles-- see WT:WikiProject_Rivers#Category:Rivers_of_Ulster_County.2C_New_York -- Mwanner | Talk 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I created the bridges cat for both counties because the parent cats were getting grossly overpopulated. I suppose you could merge the county-level bridge cats back in to the county-level transportation cats. But I also would like to say that there's potential for a lot more bridges in both categories. Particularly in Ulster, where I think a couple more of the bridges over the Wallkill and Rondout may merit articles (is there any notability standard for bridges? I should join this project and help develop some if there aren't. In fact, I should just join this project period since I write about enough bridges), as well as some from the National Register that I have photos of and will be developing articles about when I get to processing them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To my thinking there would be nothing wrong with the county cats if it weren't for the policy statement at :Category:Bridges in New York all but mandating duplicate cats, but I can also see why that's there, since there are a number of non-exhaustive cats involved with Bridges.  What do you think of Postdlf's suggestion of using County List articles in lieu of County Cats? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see his point, given that some counties, in NY (Hamilton) and outside for that matter are unlikely ever to have enough notable bridges to justify a cat. But at the same time, if we just leave all entries in "Bridges in New York" save NYC bridges we'll have a greatly overpopulated category. There are about a hundred bridges upstate on the National Register, most of which we haven't written articles about yet. There are notable bridges we should have and don't, like the Cohoes-Waterford Bridge.In creating the Ulster and Orange cats, my intent was to depopulate the parent cat in a reasonable way. I certainly didn't mean to imply that every county in New York deserves a category (this is much like my approach in creating the rivers subcategories), just those that would support a small category of their own.I mean, if this is what the bridges project wants ... a really large state-level cat with almost no subcats, fine. But I think that whoever wrote this, understanding that there are a lot of bridges in New York City and it would make sense to have their own cat, didn't really understand the implications of just how many bridges there are that articles could be written about in NY state as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even adding another 100 articles to the present NY state-level cat wouldn't overload it, or make it difficult to navigate (they are alphabetically organized, after all) so I'm not understanding that concern—what does overpopulated mean here?  How is the category harmed or made less useful by having that many articles in it?  I also think that creating any county subcategory necessarily invites the creation of more.  I just don't think it's helpful to force readers to navigate through counties to browse or search the bridges in NY state.  Postdlf (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  When I go to the Category:Bridges in NY, I want to see all the bridges in NY.  I don't want to have to navigate to several pages to find the one I'm looking for.  Unless we are talking about several hundred articles I don't think subdivision is necessary or desirable.  Cacophony (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm just going by the implication of WP:CAT#Large categories, which seems to suggest that any category you have to page through is too large. Granted, you could add a table of contents per that section. But it just goes against what I see in every other sub-state level categorization ...  gives way to  and so forth. Cacophony, I'm not suggesting that the state-level cats be replaced by county-level ones. This project has decided to have it both ways, and that seems to be OK with the Wikipedia community as a whole. I'm simply defending the additional existence of county-level subcats.Because without them, I'd list a bridge in both "Transportation in Foo County" and "Buildings and structures in Foo County". One very precisely and unambiguously named subcat is, IMO, better than two that seem to suggest a Venn diagram. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you keep all the articles in the state-level cat, how has the existence of county-level cats improved the large cat problem in the state-level cat? And it's not as if the existence of county-level cats is going to keep anyone from creating "Transportation in Foo County" and "Buildings and structures in Foo County" as well.  -- Mwanner | Talk 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not how I'd run a project, but it wasn't my decision. If the bridges project is comfortable with it, it can be done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridges in X County 

message: Gibbs street bridge - can this be saved? --NE2 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing is for sure: this article is gonna need one heck of a copyedit job. It is barely intelligible as it is, and does not state what obstacle the bridge crosses. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's over I-5:  --NE2 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: There are not many freeway overpasses that are notable on their own, let alone a pedestrian bridge that is still in the planning stages. Does this one have any characteristic that makes it stand out? Maybe a mention in Interstate 5 in Oregon will be sufficient. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The completed bridge will have notability as an extradosed bridge, because that type is relatively rare. Also, a seven hundred foot span makes it a long span bridge, something not normally seen for a pedestrian bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: Schoharie Creek Bridge collapse. Improvements welcome (to the article, not the bridge - too late for the bridge)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, they improved the bridge in 2005. :-D  - Denimadept (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Before that, it was just a bunch of stubs.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bridge stub 

message: I edited Haikou Century Bridge and put in an infobox. I guessed the type of bridge but I think I am wrong. My friend took the pic. I will take a daytime shot ASAP. Perhaps the night photo will be enough for someone to guess the type.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's clearly a Cable-stayed bridge.  I'm adding some refs and such to the article now. - Denimadept (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They all kind of look the same to me. Thanks for the fix.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What type of bridge? 

message: Quite the subculture going on here. I created a stub called Bridge scour. Please feel free to edit it. It may be in DYK . I would like to eventually replace the lead picture with a better one. Government pdf references from the article have lots which are great, but I am not sure on the whole copyvio situation. Can someone advise. Please, however, don't change the gif pic until after the DYK comes and goes. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If US Government, then all is copyright free. Peterlewis (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks. I will add some pics.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was invited to this wikiproject.