Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philadelphia Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Philadelphia or New Jersey may be able to help!

[edit] Chart

What is the ID# in the chart? == Samuel Wantman 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

States identify their bridges by number; many states mark these numbers on the bridges. All of these numbers are in the National Bridge Inventory data, most of which was submitted by the states to the feds. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about explaining this at National Bridge Inventory (or whatever it should be titled) and then linking "ID Number" on the chart? ==Samuel Wantman 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Not sure if that's the best place to have the explanation, as it's a state-level numbering, but I can't think of any better place. Will do. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've created a stub there. --SPUI (talk) 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bridge has some pretty nice views, but the police won't let you take pictures of it, citing "security concerns". What rights can't you take away from someone, citing those concerns? By the way, you cannot reply to this post, it's for your own safety.

[edit] Categorization of bridge articles

Here is the discussion regarding categorization: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_and_subcategories. Here is the discussion about bridge categories specificially: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bridges#Categorization and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges#Bridge_Categorization Cacophony 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony is correct. The issue has been discussed for over a year, leading to a recent rewrite with the guideline changes. Bridges should be in both geographical subcategories and toll bridge subcategories. -- Samuel Wantman 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is consistant with the categorization of every other bridge in the USA. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an "issue", if one can say that, that is being made far more complex and confusing then it need be. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The droping of the Bridges in Foo category, does address this issue, and prevents the redundant listing of articles in both sub-cats and the parent cats, which is the issue that i am trying to address here. The Category of Toll bridges in Foo, does satasify both the so called toll brodge and geographic requirement. This sub cat is listed in Bridges in Foo, which would satasify the Bridges by geeographic location requairment, and Toll Brodges in the United States, which also satasifies geographic requiremnts as well as the toll bridge requiremnt being that the category is also a sub in Toll Bridges. With the one category type meeting the "requirements" then the addation of the Bridges in Foo category to articles with the present Toll Bridges in Foo only goes to create a redudant listing. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict so some of this is duplication) After a year of discussion, the consensus is that categorization is primarily a means of browsing. Subcategorization was very important before it was possible to navigate around large categories with a table of contents. With the advent of CategoryTOC it is now possible to navigate categories with thousands of articles. Recent discussions have been talking about having sub-categories fully populated up to the "subject article" level, so for example, Category:Film directors would be fully populated along with all the subcategories of Film directors by nationality. The reason for this is that users would be as likely and perhaps more likely to want to browse through the large category as they would the small one. This is also the case with bridges. Limiting categorization to the lowest level, in this case the subcategories of toll bridges makes it possible to browse through toll bridge categories but very difficult to browse through bridge categories. At the bridge project we agreed to populate bridges up to the state level. In a sense this is more complicated, but I think it makes all the categories more useful. -- Samuel Wantman 08:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this subpage of Wikipedia:Categorization -- Samuel Wantman 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thats a really poor rational. I would replace you complicated eith confucing, and either way if you describe something as complicated, its not usefull. If you are going to do it this really inefficent way that you are doing it, then you mine as well either drop the sub cats all together or add the category heriarchy direcly to each article. I am sorry buy your category rational and implementation, consensus or not, is poor and inefficient. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the page you sited, i do not see as proving your point, matter of fact it works more in opposing the current scheime. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this paragraph? -- Samuel Wantman 08:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• THE ALL OR NOTHING RULE — When the subcategories are a few incomplete subsets of the category. Do MOST of the articles belong in only the main category and not in one of the existing subcategories? Is it impossible or awkward to complete the set of subcategories and move all the articles to the subcategories so that NO articles are left in the category? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", duplication is a good idea. For example, actor Marlon Brando is in Category:Best Actor Oscar and its parent Category:Film actors. While it is possible to add Category:Actors who never won an Oscar to complete the categorization scheme with all actors being in one or the other of the subcategories and none in the parent category, this wouldn't make the categories any more useful, and would make it much harder to categorize actors and search for them in categories. Another example of this is Category:Bridges in New York City and Category:Toll bridges in New York City. ALL the toll bridges are listed in both categories. These situations come about when one hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States). In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy. It also makes it easier to see a complete list of the bridges in each location.

Yes i did read it, and based upon the exaples given, i dont see any of the categories involved would quailfy based upon thses examples. Also the inclusion of the bridge statement, is a bad idea. In that in the way it is structured it disregards the idea of all or nothing, it basically set a precident for the used of category dupilcation on virtuarly all categories. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)