Template talk:Infobox Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the US, most of this data appears in the national bridge inventory data; if you need a copy I can send it. --SPUI 02:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

id 8 4-18
coordinates 16/17 130-137/138-146
maint 21 151-152
open 27 157-160
below 39 190-193

when closed (for a lift bridge): 116 386-389

design 43 202-204
mainspan 48 218-222
length 49 223-228
width 52 239-242
clearance 53 243-246

Contents 1 how to add a photo to this template 2 Term defintions 3 Deprecated? 4 Demolished Bridges 5 carries? 6 move? 7 Option vs required 8 Map standards? 9 Coordinates 10 lat long vs coordinates 11 Height needed 12 Architect / Builder 13 Maps missing 14 Color of title 15 "Troll" field

[edit] how to add a photo to this template

From: Pulaski Skyway

• |bridge_name=[[image:Pulaski_Skyway_northbound_plaque.jpg|300px|Northbound at the span over the Passaic River.]]|official_name=General Pulaski Skyway|

Cacophony 20:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This still works but there is now an "Image=" parm that works as well or better ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term defintions

Am I correct that Vertical clearance is the height of the bridge structure above the roadway and that Clearance below is the distance between the water and the bottom of the bridge? --Jason McHuff 00:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is the correct interpretation. I have all of this info in my newly received National Bridge Inventory Data CD, but I am having trouble deciphering the 300 character long codes. Ack! Cacophony 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I admit to still being a bit confused, is the vertical clearance the total height of the structure (the tower height, for example, for a suspension bridge) or the clearance for the opening in the tower (continuing with the same example) that determines how tall a vehicle can be and pass through. If the latter, is that as significant as the height of the tallest part of the structure? I dunno... I just added this box to a few bridges and I got all confused trying to do this, usually the clearance you get from other sites such as structurae.de is the bridge to water clearance for ships... not the other one. PS: where did you guys get these data CDs? Thanks! ++Lar 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The information on how to get a CD is here. The term vertical clearance is used to describe how tall a vehicle can be. I personally think that it shouldn't be included in the infoboxes. Cacophony 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK... I guess it makes sense. So for a deck truss like Poughkeepsie Bridge do you suggest 'infinite' as the value there? ++Lar 12:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The national bridge inventory lists the value as infinite. I don't really like having it included in the infobox. Cacophony 23:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

maybe make it optional? I think you can probably tell I'm not a huge fan. I can go fix the articles I put the box into to get rid of ? (I gotta stop putting ? in!) ++Lar 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

how do you make fields optional? Cacophony 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Beats me! I just went and checked and I think they already were. Apologies if I am confused but don't constructs like this:

|- class="hiddenStructure{{{id|}}}"
| '''[[National Bridge Inventory#ID numbers|ID number]]'''
| {{{id}}}

make the parm ("id" in this case) optional? I am only an egg when it comes to template writing, I must confess. switches and qifs and things are not something I totally grok. ++Lar 06:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Neato, I didn't realize how that worked. I saw some templates that had a question marks in them, but those have to be deleted in order for the field to disappear. Check 10-4. Cacophony 08:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well cool! Glad to "sort of cluelessly" be of service! And thanks for fixing that in some of the articles I've been editing. I would have done it "eventually"... (meaning: probably would have forgotten about it for a while) so coolness all around. ++Lar 14:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecated?

(asked this on Template talk:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap too) I just noticed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges page that this template is said to be deprecated and that Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap should be used instead. But I don't have a map for (for example: Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge. It does say that the map is optional. Can someone help me out by explaining how to use that template? Thanks! ++Lar 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is obsolete, the WithMap version's features have been merged in as optional parms and ..WithMap is now the obsolete/deprecated one. Deleted even, IIRC... (as evidenced by the redlinks) ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demolished Bridges

For bridges that have been razed, do we want an optional field that gives their destruction date? Also is it worth noting somewhere that the geolocation stuff won't show you a pic of the bridge (because it isn't there any more) some how? I can hack the first one in, no worries (if folks agree... call it what "demolished date" ??) but the second one I dunno about. Thoughts? ++Lar 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Why not throw in average daily traffic as well. That info is on the CD. The optional fields are great, put anything in there and only use it if you have the information. Cacophony 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I added both fields just now. I see no reason not to add information being that the field will only be shown if the data is present. Cacophony 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

K, I did Niagara Cantilever Bridge and Sky Ride... see what you think. We may or may not want to tweak the wording on the field, because for one I knew the month and for the other I didn't. Tacoma Narrows Bridge if it gets a box, can use this presumably. Although maybe we need to figure out how to handle successive bridges at the same location (consider Carquinez for an example... the first one was built in the 20s, the second similar one in the 50's, now they're building a new (and different) one and will tear the first one down. arguably these all belong in one article not split out. So maybe they get 3 boxes? ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] carries?

Should the carries field include #1 what type of traffic (highway, pedestrian, etc), #2 what roads or rail lines, or #3 how many lanes/tracks? I have seen all three used. My preference would be the name of the road or rail line carried, maybe "3 lanes of Interstate 6". Cacophony 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer this if you answer some of mine! ... OK, kidding. I think the number of lanes and direction, what type of traffic, and what designation/ownership for each type would ALL be useful information and broadening carries oror expanding it into several subfields might be goodness. A (clearly) hypothetical (and clearly exaggerated) example: The Mumble Bridge carries 3 eastbound general use lanes and one bidirectional HOV lane of US 29/I 52, a narrow gauge track of the D&RGW tourist railway, two standard gauge tracks of the BNSF, a busway restricted to buses of the greater Billings Mass Transit Authority, a bidirectional pedestrian path, and the Montana section of the trans Alaska Pipeline. Fitting all that into "carries" is a bit much. For more real examples, see Williamsburg Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move?

How about, for the sake of simplicity, moving this template to Template:Bridge? Cacophony 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the convention was to use Infobox in the name for infoboxy things but I could be confused. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

K, scope out this little search (which by the way is really handy, you may want to save it: ) all pages in template space that start with infobox .... there are hundreds of them. So I would say it's a convention. (not to be confused with being OPPOSED to a move, mind you) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is convention, mostly to prevent arguments and inconsistency when an infobox, a footer, a series box, or any other template would all relate to "Bridge". -- Netoholic @ 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option vs required

I'm thinking locale and opening date may want to be optional parms. Not sure. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll probably want to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. My feeling is that, if you want to have a high-quality and consistent Infobox, you should limit the optionals to those which are impossible to fill in/not applicable on more than around 25% of potential articles. The benefit of showing the empty rows is that editors will be prompted to fill them in. If you're hiding to many, you should reconsider whether they are truly important to the Infobox. Some things are so infrequent that mention in the article itself is better. -- Netoholic @ 07:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could be discussed there but this IS the talk page for the template. I guess I think the template ought to have as much optional as possible, because I can think of a plausible scenario for just about every field not having a known value. That doesn't contradict the view that editors should strive to fill in as many fields as they can, which I do agree with. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest contacting the WikiProject be cause they define what the articles contain and look like overall. This template is just part of how that is implemented and may not be on all their watchlists. This talk page here is more about technical aspects. The way I see it, if fields are not visible, few editors will even realize those options are available. Also, some fields are almost trivial and can really stray from the core set of information that this infobox should present. -- Netoholic @ 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, I'm sorry for any confusion, I am already a member of the bridges project, have made several suggestions about how things ought to be done there, many of which have been adopted, and I've already used this box in several new bridge articles I authored, as well as adding it to bridge articles I happened to edit that were in existance already. The use of the <noinclude> tagging to show an example of the template usage alleviates the "won't tend to fill it out" concern in my view. Again, I can think of a plausible scenario for any particular field needing to be optional, even in an article where most other fields are used. I'm not really seeing this as a big an issue as you may think, though. I'll just go ahead and make the changes myself when I get a chance. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map standards?

I'm new to this... what are the standards for this map and map size thing? Do you use Google Maps? Other satellite sources? When I upload the image from this source, under what license should it be? Thanks! —Rob 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion about bridge maps has been taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges#Maps. Ideally the license should be GFLD compatible. There are several websites that generate public domain maps that you can edit. If I were more proficient with Photoshop I would be able to give you an example. Right now the best example that comes to mind is on San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, but I would say that it could use labels. A map of the state with a pushpin on the bridge location would also be handy. Just think about what it would take for you, having no prior knowledge, to understand exatcly where a bridge is located. Cacophony 20:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And no, you should not use Google Maps to generate maps for Wikipedia because they are copyrighted. That's generally the run for any for-profit site. Cacophony 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

I've added a line similar to the one in Template:Infobox Lighthouse. I find the existing "lat=" "long=" a bit problematic because it requires conversion from DMS to DD just to enter it into the lat= "long=" box. The "coordinates=" line should be used with {{coor d}} {{coor dm}} or {{coor dms}} and will point all the images that the "lat=" and "long=" point to. If not used it should remain hidden so all the pages currently using this template should not need to be changed. It also links to the maps and all the aerial photos similar to the existing "lat=" "long=" lines. See the infobox for Fred Schwengel Memorial Bridge as an example of usage. --Dual Freq 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Who was that? SPUI I am guessing? Personally I strongly prefer the lat/long DD format because the coords I can find easily for most bridges are in that form and conversion is extra work. I'd strongly oppose breaking this template in any way or requiring any sort of recalculations. I think when making changes, discussing them first is often a good approach unless one is sure they don't break anything. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have only hit two tildes when I signed the above comment. I intended for the "coordinates=" line to be used with any of the following {{coor d}} {{coor dm}} or {{coor dms}}. They do the same thing as the geolinks and it takes up less space. I prefer DMS because I use software that outputs DMS and DMS looks better displayed in the template. --Dual Freq 14:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of taste as to whether DMS looks better or not. Further DD seems to be more widespread on sites that can take, or supply, coordinates and that's more important to my way of thinking... enabling readers and editors to produce accurate and generally high quality articles takes precedence. IMHO anyway. So if the upshot is that this template is broken, I'd like to see that corrected. But if the upshot is that it works with any style, great. As long as the next step isn't to try to get rid of DD, I'm all for it. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the changes made recently, I see that they have changed the maps portion. Looks like the maps section was changed [here] by User:SPUI. My changes were done in March and didn't affect the map section, just allowed one or both to be used depending on the editor's choice. Personally, I prefer just the coordinates section instead of the lat= long=, but I didn't want to affect the other pages using the template nor did I want to change all the pages to a new format. As for right now, I recommend either remove lat= and long= and convert to coordinates= on all pages or revert to the template before SPUI changed the maps section. (I'd say revert to previous, it's easier than changing all the pages) --Dual Freq 15:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch that this was an older change, sorry! Right now it's broken it seems. Take a look at Kingston-Port Ewen Suspension Bridge for example. There's a tick at the top above the box that does nothing, and the nice links to Google, Terraserver, and Yahoo we used to have in the bottom of the box are replaced with a link to a page with SO MANY MAPS that it's effectively useless. I am not up for warring with SPUI about stuff though, that's just a no win situation. Apologies if I cast aspersions on you... ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lat long vs coordinates

I reverted because it is the editors choice to use either lat= or long=. If an editor wants the stuff similar to {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}} then use lat= and long=. If an editor just wants {{coor d}} / coor dms then use coordinates=. Using a "template within a template" should be avoided as was done by putting coor d into this template. --Dual Freq 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably necessary to mention that the datum used by this template is WGS84 or equivalent. Using a different datum might pull up the wrong image. Old sources that use NAD27 or others should probably be converted as they can be off by 200 meters. Don't blame me, I didn't make up the coor d or geolinks template that this template uses. --Dual Freq 11:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height needed

Could someone please add a height parameter to the template? Think of the Golden Gate Bridge for a reason why. What parameter would you use for the height of the towers? Also then I can fix Conowingo Dam, although using Infobox Bridge there is still an uneasy fit. Thanks. I'd attempt it, but it would be my first template edit and the inevitable screw up(s) would be way too visible.--J Clear 02:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —wwoods 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architect / Builder

Anyone mind if I add in two optional parameters to specify the architect and builder (construction company or organisation) of the bridge? I am working on some Australian bridge articles and would like to include the information. amitch 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps missing

Looking at San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge I couldn't see a map with the changes from User:NE2, I'm not sure what the problem was, but reverting them seemed to fix the Bay Bridge article. --Dual Freq 17:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I found my error; now James River Bridge and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge both work properly. --NE2 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color of title

I know that some older browsers have trouble with white text. could we maybe try black text on a pastel background instead of white on black? I'll make such a change shortly, revert me if you really think it's bad. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried it, and I see VerructeDan went back to no color background. I support that change as well. I'm just concerned about white text not always working. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Troll" field

Is this field meant to be a joke? Laïka 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a joke added by NE2 a while ago that went uncaught. I have removed it. —Dgies^{t c} 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not my addition; it was added by Lar in this edit. --NE2 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)