Talk:Tacoma Narrows Bridge

message: I'm placing this at the top of the talk page rather than the bottom, for visibility. However, with that said, I'm making a proposal. This article should be split, again, into another separate article devoted to the 1950 Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The current paragraph-long section on the 1950 span isn't nearly enough information on it (construction phase timeline, etc.), and doesn't even include the four men who lost their lives while building it. We already have a well-detailed article on the 1940 bridge, and it would do the 1950 bridge a great deal of justice to split it off into its own article.
We should also do the same to the 2007 span, and both new articles would be full articles devoted to each bridge while this one serves as the main article for the term, and for the twin spans in general. There's plenty of information on both the 1950 (even the 1940 bridge!) as well as the 2007 span that isn't even published here, and I have more than enough verifiable sources to at least get a good start on them.Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, as long as there is enough material to open a new article Diego Torquemada (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentI went ahead and was a little bold. I created the 1950 Tacoma Narrows Bridge article here. I'm still working on it, and created a redlink to the 2007 bridge article. If anyone objects, we could merge content and delete.Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: An entertaining take on this article. Aviad2001 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those of you who haven't seen this yet 

message: Was Leonard Coatsworth an accountant (as described in front of his quote at the beginning of the "Collapse" section) or a "Tacoma News Tribute photographer" as described in the "Tubby the Dog" subsection?  I doubt they are both correct, and having both facts makes reading the article somewhat interesting.- Enuja  (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonard Coatsworth 

message: Walking over the bridge today I saw this worker transport thing cruising along under the new bridge. I couldn't figure out where to put it in the article though, so if somebody else thinks it's worthwhile, feel free to put it in. Murderbike (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There really should be a "Maintenance" section, but the only thing I'm finding in a quick search is , which was written before the second span was built (and which I can only see through Google's cache, for some reason). I know I've read human interest news stories in the past about the guys whose job it is to paint the bridge, and it's a year-round job. I don't know if anything's been written after the new bridge opened, though. Travisl (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: The article currently states that the eastbound bridge has "the first roadway toll operation in Washington for nearly 20 years," citing a reference to the removal of tolls from the Hood Canal bridge in 1985.  However, Astoria-Megler Bridge says that tolls were removed from that span in 1993.  It could be argued that the toll booth was on the Oregon side.  Bridge of the Gods (modern structure) is still an active toll bridge, operated by the Port of Cascade Locks. Similarly, Hood River Bridge is a toll bridge operated by the Port of Hood River.  I've removed the statement again. Hopefully someone can clarify what it means. Travisl (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First toll in x years 

message: SPLIT: this is because, the actual Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the collapsed Tacoma Narrows Bridge (Galloping Gertie) are actually two different bridges, that just carry the same name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegotorquemada (talk • contribs) 12:06, July 20, 2008
:I disagree. See the Talk:Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge#Update section above: the WSDOT refers to the spans "Gertie" or "1940 Narrows Bridge"; the "Current Narrows Bridge" (which I imagine they now call the "1950 Narrows Bridge"); and the "2007 Narrows Bridge."  As I said last July, I think we can safely refer to both spans collectively as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, very similar to what's done at Delaware Memorial Bridge. 
:If your point is that the bridge that collapsed should have a different page than the bridges that are still standing, I'd disagree with that as well.  Hood Canal Bridge doesn't, and I wouldn't think to search for Old Hood Canal Bridge to find out about the part that sunk.  Similarly, Second Narrows Bridge, 14th Street Bridge (Potomac River), and Caracas-La Guaira highway each refer to previous incarnations of the spans with no separate article for them.  Contrarily, Quebec Autoroute 19 briefly mentions the De la Concorde overpass collapse, which is fully dealt with in a separate article. This, however, would be similar to Washington State Route 16 linking to an article about the Narrows Bridge collapse, if there were no Narrows Bridge article.Travisl (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. Keeping the Galloping Gertie with the other two would be like making a single page for John Smith, just because all of them share the same name.  With regard to the bridges that you mention, and given that they are not as popular as the Galloping Gertie is, it is understandable to keep a single page for several bridges. Also, please note that about 70% of the article refers to the Galloping Gertie, and therefore it deserves a single page in itself. Diego Torquemada (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You make a good point regarding the significance of Galloping Gertie beyond its mere existence as a prior span at its location. My disagreement was based on similar bridge collapses and reconstruction, but perhaps I'm underestimating the significance of the first bridge collapse and the film's impact towards increasing that significance.  While I still disagree, and think they should all be on one page, I don't strongly disagree, and as it seems the consensus of others is to split it, I will concede to that consensus. Go for it. Travisl (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (I do, however, think the new page should be called Galloping Gertie instead of Old Tacoma Narrows Bridge, because there's two bridges that laymen could consider to be the "old" one. Travisl (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Old Tacoma Narrows Bridge 

message: There was one death as a result of the 1940 collapse, and that was a dog that belonged to the man (whose name eludes at this time)  who had his car stuck in the middle of the span. Yet I see no information about that, it just says no "human deaths", yet there was still a death as a result of the collapse so I think that should be considered for addition to to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.250.61 (talk • contribs) 17:23 PST 2008-12-07
:It's covered, in as much depth is as reasonable, at Galloping Gertie#Tubby_the_dog. Travisl (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty

message: This article seems to switch frequently between American and International measurements as the main measurement. I think they should all be switched to the US Customary system, seeing as how this is an article about an American bridge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.75.51 (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that it should be switched to the international system, since the rest of the world has done it Diego Torquemada (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Customary vs Metric

message: It is stated several times in this article about the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge that the ENTIRE suspension bridge collapsed. It is also said that the ENTIRE bridge had to be reconstructed. These are not a true statements, and they needs to be corrected. So many people overlook the fact that the two tall steel towers of this bridge were undamaged and did not collapse. Furthermore, people disregard the foundations for the two towers for the bridge, which were constructed with the expenditure of a large amount of money and a huge amount of labor, probably using caissons. Blinding your eyes to these is actually a gross insult to the men who worked very hard to dig and install the foundations of the bridge.
The part of a bridge that includes its foundations and the vertical supports that rise from them, up to the bottom of the roadway structure, are called the "substructure" of the bridge, and what comes above this is called the "superstructure". What actually collapsed on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was part of its superstructure, including all of its main-span roadway. After the collapse of the roadway in November 1940, all of the bridge's substructure was left intact (did not collapse), plus its two steel towers, plus the two suspension-bridge cables. 
Elsewhere in this article, it is said that the two cables were removed and used as scrap iron that was used during World War II, when steel was in great demand for ships, tanks, etc. However, I have read elsewhere, years ago, (and you'll have to look up a source) that when the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was rebuilt, that it used the same foundations and towers that had been built for the first bridge. This makes one heck of a lot of engineering and economic sense! If you think to the contrary, you need to find out whatever happened to the original foundations and the steel towers, and why. 
Also, I have never been a resident of the Tacoma area, but I did drive across the Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge in about 2003, and that bridge was clearly more than two lanes wide. It was at least four lanes wide, and it was set up as an expressway. Something needs to be written about how and why the two-lane bridge of 1940 became the four-lane bridge of 1950. I believe that this happened in the redesign and rebuilding of the bridge. By about 1947, they knew that they new bridge needed to be wider -- simply since the population of the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area had exploded during WW II. Lots of people came from other parts of the country to work in the Boeing Aircraft plants and in the various shipyards that grew tremendously during WW II, especially to support the naval base at Bremerton. Hundreds of thousands of people moved there, and after the war was over, lots of them did not want to leave. The same thing happened in many places in California, but especially San Francisco-Oakland, Los Angeles-Burbank-Long Beach, and in San Diego County. Likewise in areas of Texas, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, etc.98.81.3.222 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of things.  (1) Do not, ever, change another person's comments in any way, including grammar and spelling.  (2) the towers were damaged in the collapse, so yes, the entire bridge had to be replaced. - Denimadept (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: More, if you disagree, you're welcome to provide references.  Others have done this.  Otherwise, you might well be mis-remembering what you read "years ago".  - Denimadept (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: One last thing.  I feel like I've been a bit hard on you, but I don't mean it to feel like that.  What I intend is that you consider what you're writing carefully before you modify existing text.  While WP:BOLD is the guideline, you've got to consider that this stuff, and especially this article about a famous engineering failure, has been gone over by many people over a period of years.  To suddenly come up with a drastically different POV w/o references to back that position up, is going to be rejected w/o mercy. - Denimadept (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Collapse of the Entire Bridge ???" 

message: I haven't got any references, other than Structurae, which cover both bridges, and even that doesn't cover them completely.  I have real problems believing these bridges are the same.  (doing more research) - Denimadept (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've built a new  just for the 2007 bridge, but I want to find data on the 1950 bridge first, to see how much different they might be.  The new box is based on this site, and I'd continue looking for the 1950 data but I'm tired and am going to bed. - Denimadept (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: It is quite clear from this photo that the bridges are not at all identical. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1950 and 2007 bridges are not identical, are they? 

message: Added the book Engineering Failures which contains a chapter all about the failure of the original bridge, and why it failed. Contains information that this article does not, along with more pictures of the collapse and first hand accounts of the collapse itself. --Tbrown224 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading  

message: This article explains why the oscillation of the bridge happened. It goes into why an early explanation was flawed. It gives valuable in dept reasoning on the collapse.--Tbrown224 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock and Roll Bridge 

message: I came to this article looking for the 1940 bridge. I suspect that a significant minority- and more likely the majority- of people are in the same position. It was not immediately obvious where the standalone article for that (as would be expected for such a well-known subject) was.
It turned out in this edit that  had removed the previous hatnote stating "Not really disambiguation, but subtopics".
They may be subtopics, but they still have their own articles (i.e. they're not subsection redirects).
Even if the subject people are looking for is ultimately mentioned in the article- here as a "mainarticle" link, along with other mentions- it's not reasonable to expect people to have to read through other content (irrelevant to what they want) to reach the subject they're looking for.
To be honest, part of the problem is that the organisation of this article is badly focused. It's neither sufficiently concentrated on the 2007 eastbound bridge (which the previous hatnote claimed it was primarily about), but nor is it a proper umbrella article covering all three bridges (the eastbound bridge not having its own article).
This should maybe be addressed, but it doesn't negate the legitimacy of hatnote links direct to the main 1950 and 1940 bridge articles.
Ubcule (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Possibly- but to be fair, the article title itself still uses the word "bridge", so it's more to do with what people might expect from the article. Since we've agreed to keep the hatnote, it's pretty much academic anyway! Ubcule (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation hatnote