Talk:St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge/Archive1

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to keep separate from I-35W Mississippi River bridge.

Suggested procedure for addressing proposed merger

It has been proposed that Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge be merged into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Here is my suggested procedure for discussing and resolving this issue:

• ignore past history of merge actions; this is not a contest
• do not execute merger while discussion is ongoing. Per Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger, discuss a proposal to merge before executing the merger. Common content is now on both pages and does no harm while the matter is being discussed.
• respect others' positions and assume good faith; this is not an ethical issue, and there are two sides and valid points of view
• discuss pros and cons of merger here
• keep this matter open for discussion for 5 days (until 13 August 2007) and then arrive at a decision
• keep an open mind and work for consensus

Thank you. Kablammo 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors with 18+ edits to either of the pages have been notified. Kablammo 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The gesture is appreciated. Canuckle 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Earlier today an editor deleted this article and redirected it to I-35W Mississippi River bridge. I believe that over the next 16 months, and in fact indefinitely, there will be plenty of material to support both articles. I expect the name of this one to change when a name is chosen for the new bridge. We can come to a consensus in a merge proposal if desired, but in the meantime, I am restoring this article.--Appraiser 12:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of merge proposal

(From Talk:I-35W Mississippi River Bridge):

There will be a new bridge shortly, and references (such as upstream/downstream bridges) were starting to fracture. I merged the Replacement Bridge article in as a prickly stub section. (SEWilco 04:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

I am going to undo your deletion and redirect of the article on the new bridge. This article is about the bridge built in 1967, and primarily about its collapse. The other article will become a robust article about the design, construction and eventually use of the new bridge. I have no problem with the nav boxes linking to here with a (collapsed) note, but there will be plenty of material for a second article. The WP way to do what you want to do is to initiate a merge discussion.--Appraiser 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The new bridge is also "I-35W Mississippi River bridge". There is no need to fork the topic, and the creation of the new bridge seems to be quite entangled with the issues around the old bridge. (SEWilco 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Changes of this nature should be discussed before being implemented, with proper notification of the proposed merge on both changes, discussion at one location, and time for comments before implementation of changes. It would also be helpful if people would not treat the discussion as a vote, but keep open minds on the issue and work to a solution. So here, I think the merger should be reverted and two articles should be kept for the time being; that the "proposed merge" template be put on both articles with reference to one of the talk pages (I suggest the replacement bridge article talk page, as it is less busy), and that the discussion continue there for a few days. I have not formed an opinion on whether the article should be merged or not; I can see arguments on both sides. Kablammo 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they should have the same article. The new bridge is a different bridge, and so it should have a different article. Two things having the same name (or even the same location) are not a sufficient condition to necessitate that they share an article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "I-35W Mississippi River Bridge (former)" or something to that effect, but different bridges should have different articles. Etphonehome 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. There are good arguments on both sides. And it may be that there is no one right or wrong answer. But let's follow procedures in making the decision (and I do not suggest you are not following procedures). Kablammo 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I think a discussion of this issue is warranted before we rush into article merges willy-nilly. Etphonehome 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a discussion before rushing into article forking willy-nilly? Is there enough material to require another article? (SEWilco 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

I mentioned on this talk page last week my intention to create an article about the replacement bridge. At that time I expected it wouldn't happen this soon, but the planning and funding for the bridge has already begun. Furthermore, this article was a nominee for GA, and the future bridge information is changing daily; I didn't want to burden this article about the old bridge with all the material related to the new one. I have proposed a merge and plan to participate in the discussion on the other article's talk page. You are welcome to state your opinions there.--Appraiser 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC):

. . .

As I recall, 36K is considered the tops for article size. This article is 50K. The new bridge will doubtless have a real name, vs. a descriptive number for the now historical bridge. If necessary, it will be titled New I35W Mississippi River Bridge. --Ace Telephone 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size. The recommended maximum is between 30-50K or 6000 to 10000 words. Word count is a much better count since article sizes are misleading particularly when the article has a lot of references. In any case, I strongly suspect the other article still needs to be trimmed Nil Einne 08:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(End of unduplicated content copied from Talk:I-35W Mississippi River Bridge)

Keep both articles At the time I first mentioned creating an article pertaining to the replacement bridge, I expected it wouldn't happen this soon, but the planning and funding for the bridge has already begun. The old bridge article was a nominee for GA, and the future bridge information is changing daily; within a few weeks, that article should stabilize. I didn't want to burden it with all the material related to the new bridge.--Appraiser 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) More: when I envision the encyclopedia 5 years hence, I'd like to see the old bridge article with the 2006 photograph, as well as disaster photographs and discussion about its design, construction, and traffic, as well as a robust paragraph summarizing the NTSB eventual findings. But we will also have construction and 2009 (hopefully) photographs showing the new bridge in use, perhaps with paragraphs about its 100-year design elements and perhaps its accommodation for eventual light rail. I hope it will have a real name, that we can call the article (The Oberstar bridge?). Ultimately they will be two distinct topics that describe structures that happen to have the same geo coordinates.--Appraiser 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I offer Quest Field resides where the Kingdome was before it was razed. Same function, same spot, new structure - Two articles.--Appraiser 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles These are two distinct bridges, they should have two distinct articles. The old bridge has more than enough material to fill its own article, and the same will be true for the new bridge in short order (especially with the expedited construction schedule). Etphonehome 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles Like User:Etphonehome said, the new bridge requires to have its own article simply because they are two distinct bridges. Chris! _{my talk} 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge them now since the replacement bridge is as yet but a gleam in a politician's eye (so to speak). Why make readers hop about all over the wiki chasing down long, unwieldy article names? Anyway I'd keep them merged forever unless the new bridge has noteworthy architecture and like, a true name or something (or unless a scandal blows forth over the awarded contracts, which could happen). Ok, I was invited to say something and I've said it, cheers to all! The article is very helpful, strong and lean IMHO thanks to you! Gwen Gale 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge them now Agree with Gwen. Let the information on the new bridge ripen until such time that this "fruit" drops away of its own accord, at which time we will certainly be seeing something concrete (pun intended). Forking at this time would be premature. Djg2006 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge until there is enough material and need for new article. The bridge article was a stub until a week ago. And the topic of the bridge article will soon become the new bridge, with old bridge info drifting toward a History section. (SEWilco 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

• Merge to I-35W (1967) article for now. Separate article on I-35W (2008) now seems premature as current content looks at home in main bridge article. Having said that, Appraiser is likely right that bridge opening in 2008/9 is relatively close and interested editors could mature the content to the point where a fork discussion is needed. Canuckle 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles - I think that each article should stay separate since they are about two separate structures. For now, I would say to keep the names of the articles the same as well. But as soon as construction on the new bridge starts (which will be within a couple months), then rename both articles. Change:
I-35W Mississippi River bridge to I-35W Mississippi River bridge (old) or something like that, and ...
Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge to I-35W Mississippi River bridge.

Edit: Here is another reason why I think they should be kept seperate. Look at the Qwest Field article. This is the stadium that the Seattle Seahawks play in. It was built on the same site that the Kingdome formerly occupied, yet even though they are both stadiums and occupied the same land, there are two different articles for them. I think some of logic used in this discussion would suggest that those two articles should be merged as well. I think that since they are two different structures and since each has enough information to support their own article the way it's setup there works. I think this situation is very similar. Gopher backer 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | Gopher backer 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles That makes the most sense to me. When the new bridge is opened to traffic, its article Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge should be changed to I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Until the new bridge is opened, the bridge referenced should be the old, destroyed bridge. Popkultur 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles I agree that we should keep both articles. The new bridge will almost definitely be named, and then will need it's own article as the old bridge's collapse seems likely to be noteworthy enough to retain it's own identity after the completion of the new bridge. The construction of the new bridge will happen soon enough that merging the two seems a very short proposition, unless some sort of scandal or environmental impact prevents the replacement from being built, in which case the process of replacing the bridge itself might become noteworthy until the project is complete. It doesn't seem likely to be much of a hassle to keep the subsection of the original synchronized with the replacement article and it should become obvious when it has outgrown it's parent article. --Jeffcarrdotinfo 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles because they are two different bridges they should have two different articles. This article is a nice stand alone size and would burden the other page with being so big. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge article should have a main article link to the replacement bridge so that readers don't have to search for a bridge that doesn't yet have a name. P.Haney 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with SEWilco. Although separate structures, that doesn't necessarily warrant separate articles. An art museum, for example, may change locations; that doesn't mean there needs to be a new article because of a new building. It's still going to be the I-35W Mississippi River bridge. There does not need to be two separate articles. If anything, I would think the collapse would eventually warrant its own article. Regardless, the old bridge and it's collapse would be part of the history section. If it was a stub a week ago, it shouldn't be a long history. Lara♥Love 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge The article Tacoma Narrows Bridge discusses both of the bridges that have had that name, and I see no reason to deviate from something that is already accepted here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge per comments above from TomStar81. The same holds true for Chesapeake City Bridge, Tasman Bridge, Stirling Bridge, and Quebec Bridge. Stick to precedent. ++Arx Fortis 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Silver Bridge and Silver Memorial Bridge seem to be a counterexample, though those two bridges have slightly different names. The old I-35W bridge had no real name, and the name given to the new bridge (if any) is yet to be determined, so I don't know how best to categorize this. Etphonehome 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn per below comment. Etphonehome 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how you can use those as a counter example as those 2 bridges are in seperate locations about 10 miles apart from each other so therefore they warrent sperate articles. In this case the new bridge will be in or very near the exact spot where the old bridge was. This is why Tacoma Narrows Bridge is all 1 article.Sawblade05 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment My apologies. The articles don't say how far away the new bridge is from the old one, and I assumed they were much closer together than ten miles. Etphonehome 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also, Tasman Bridge and Stirling Bridge don't really parallel this situation very well. The Tasman Bridge seems to have been merely damaged, not completely destroyed, so it only needed to be repaired rather than replaced with an entirely new structure. Stirling Bridge is a redirect to the Battle of Stirling Bridge. That article makes little mention of the actual bridge. Etphonehome 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as a matter of practicality. If the section on the replacement bridge becomes too large, it can always be spun off later. Since there won't be a significant influx of new information for at least a month (when the contracts are awarded), it seems silly to keep a whole article aside for two measly paragraphs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if what happens right now is as important as the future, after the new bridge opens. I think by that time there will definitely be enough information for two articles. Precedent is also unclear; Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge and Charlestown High Bridge are separate articles, and both could be expanded greatly (for instance with engineering specifications). If the old bridge there is merged anywhere, it would probably fit better into an article about the old Central Artery as a whole, since it was an integral part of that long bridge-tunnel combination. Other separate articles include Old Elbe Tunnel/New Elbe Tunnel (though the old tunnel still exists), New York City water supply system/New York City Water Tunnel No. 3, and Old State Library Building, Brisbane/State Library of Queensland. --NE2 05:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Merge I don't feel like the information in both articles make them too big and in fact I don't see 2 or 3 articles for Tacoma Narrows Bridge (3 bridges are involved on that article 1. The Old span that collapsed, 2. The new span built on the site, 3. The brand new 2nd twin span). When all the dust settles down you will see that all the information on both articles would be able to fit well. Another reason why I fell strong about mergeing them is that the 2 bridges are believed to be in the same excact location and I would have to create fractures for all the bridge lists that did get reverted last night when I made those and SEWilco noticed them and reverted back. Sawblade05 06:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both Articles Yes, they are related subjects, but the 2 separate articles refer to 2 separate bridges (actually, to a current total of 0 bridges; one former bridge, and 1 proposed future bridge, but nonetheless 2 separate bridge designs, or ideas). The proposed new bridge is a complex issue in its own right, with the chief concerns now being politics and financing (whereas with the collapsed bridge, it was saving or finding victims, then playing the blame-game, and now mostly an issue of past maintenance and inspections, even though not all of the victims have been found). Also, why is this article in the category of "Category=Low-importance U.S. road transport articles"??? I would think it should be of paramount importance at this point in time, and for at least the next several months, if not years. Shanoman 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping both articles right now. Even with the lack of information on the proposed replacement. As someone noted above, more information on the new bridge will be promulgated as we go through the process. And someone else mentioned about article sizes. Ajfroggie 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's the key point. That's in the future. We should not keep an article which should not exist at the current time just because we're probably going to need one in the future. Nil Einne 08:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both Articles If the bridge that collapsed was named after a famous person, and then the replacement bridge was renamed, then it would not make sense to merge the two articles. Even though these bridges aren't specially named, they should remain separate as they detail two entirely different structures. KansasCity 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Information like "asking for contractor bids" are more relevant for news article than an encyclopedia. Until a design or a name is chosen, this article doesn't even qualify as an article about a bridge (more like "an article about the intention to build a bridge"). --Voidvector 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong merge Not enough encyclopaedic information and the replacement proposal is not enough to warrant a seperate article. While it seems very likely that there will be enough information and a seperate article will be warranted in a few months, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we shouldn't keep an article just because the subject is very likely to be noteable in the future. If Minnesota is hit by an asteroid tomorrow it's likely this proposal will never see the light of day and the proposal will remain forever a non-noteable proposal which does not merit a seperate article. Ultimately, this comes down to what I and many others often say. Split if & when needed, don't split because you think it'll be needed in the future. And IMHO it's harmful to have 2 articles when one will do because 1) There tends to be an unnecessary duplication of effort. 2) Often both articles end up conflicting each other 3) People tend to allow unenyclopaedic and unnecessary information to remain in both articles because they lose focus of size, weight and importance issues Nil Einne 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Both The new bridge will be notable enough to warrent seperate article. .....Todd^#661 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both For all the reasons stated above in the various "keep" positions. Additionally, while the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would appear to be a reasonable example to justify a merge position, I don't think it is relevant. The 1940 collapse occurred well before Wikipedia came into existence. The popularity of Wikipedia now and the media attention and availability of information for the current collapse ensures that there is a wealth of interesting information being captured about the collapse of the I35W bridge. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus we shouldn't feel constrained to force information into one article. A previous commenter indicated that wikipedia is not a crystal ball as justification for merging the two articles. This replacement article is not being a crystal ball in that this "future" bridge is all but certain to be built. Sitting here in the Twin Cities, it is absolutely clear that the bridge MUST be built. Money is being allocated, contracts sought and the Star-Tribune carried a front page headline of a hoped-for opening in 2008. Speculating that the replacement bridge will also collapse would require a "crystal ball" but starting an article about the bridge's replacement certainly is not. At this point, even if a decision was made to not replace the bridge, I believe that would generate so much controversy that that too would make for enough information to keep a separate article. They are separate events and separate structures that are both already generating much information and attention in reliable sources. Therefore, they should be separate articles. Theflyer 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Both but rename. I'm just a reader, not an editor of these articles so I don't know whether my view carries as much weight. Looking for information about the bridge collapse I typed "I-35W bridge collapse" which redirected to the original I-35W Mississippi bridge article. I suspect that most people are going to type in "bridge collapse" when trying to find this article. What I recommend is an article titled "I-35W bridge collapse" and a separate article titled "I-35W Mississippi River bridge". The latter article should have the history of the original bridge, a section which links to the bridge collapse article, and then information about the replacement bridge. Sbowers3 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I expect the new bridge to be named, such as "Oberstar Bridge" at which point this article will be renamed to whatever it is. "I-35W bridge collapse" currently redirects to "I-35W Mississippi River bridge" as it should. If there are eventually going to be only two articles, I think it makes sense to keep the 1967 bridge and the collapse information together in the other article, and this article will be all about the replacement structure.--Appraiser 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think it's important to keep in mind the guidelines set forth in WP:LENGTH. The article on the old bridge is already sitting at about 55 KB, and merging in the new bridge article would bring it up to about 66 KB, approximately twice the suggested maximum size. Etphonehome 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think much of this article is already in the larger article, although a few more Kb will be needed for "under construction" and "open", in a few more words. (SEWilco 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment The other article will eventually have findings from the NTSB investigation and perhaps things such as lawsuits and/or compensation fund issues. This article will have design specifications and construction pictures before long. The topics are different and the overlap will shrink in time, but both articles will grow from here overall.--Appraiser 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer to keep the articles separate. These are two separate bridges. Note that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article contains information about the destroyed and extant bridge; I'd be curious about London Bridge also; but for this scenario it's better to clarify matters by keeping the articles separate. 71.174.111.147 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both articles Two different bridges = two articles. They will be structurally and aesthetically different, have different histories, etc., the only commonality being where they are in the transportation system. It's similar to when any new bridge, shopping mall, etc., gets built in the location of an old one. The events of the collapse, reasons for it, design flaws, etc., belong in the old article and the new article should have only a brief mention about that. As any structure under design / construction the new article is necessarily short, tentative, about current events, etc. But we have those articles all the time here. It just bears watching for reliable sources, avoiding speculation, and so on. Wikidemo 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong merge. The article is on the Mississippi River bridge, not the Mississippi Bridge collapse. For this reason, I don't think he makes sense to have a separate article for the reconstruction. I'd support a keep if there were articles on collapse and reconstruction, but not when the collapse is covered in the bridge article.—oac old american century ^talk @ 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - for now, keep both articles. When the clean up is done and the cause is found, the old article will stabilize. Merge them when this happens. Denimadept 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.