Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:BRIDGE
Archive
Archives
1, 2


I think that this project will have long term value and I'm committed to its success. As with any large topic, bridge articles are in need of some standardization and cooperative collaboration. Cacophony 00:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Some reference sites

Just ran across this list here: http://www.siue.edu/CCRU/websites.htm . I already knew about some. The brantacan.co.uk is excellent for bridge theory.

[edit] Mystery historical Mississippi bridges

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Old Blenheim Bridge covered bridge infobox and writing

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)

See Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge for the longest. - Denimadept (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, is that 232 feet (71 m) in a single span, or in multiple spans? - Denimadept (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Bridge question

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)

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)
Where'd you see this, Murderbike? - Denimadept (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oh yeah, and thanks for the clarification! Murderbike (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff! Are you going to handle the former rail/pedestrian bridge next to it also? - Denimadept (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

OK, McMillin Bridge is up. Would someone want to take a look at it, i'm not real confident on the wikilinking of terminology. Murderbike (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on it. Give me a few minutes... - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Categorization: Is it really necessary to include articles in subcats as well?

Why is it necessary for bridge articles to be located in parent & child cats simultaneously? Why should a toll bridge in New York City have to contain all the following cats:

  • toll bridge in New York City
  • bridge in New York City
  • toll bridge in New York
  • bridge in New York

It seems that an article for a toll bridge in NYC should be located in one cat and that the cat hierarchy should look like this:

  • article (toll bridge X in NYC)
    • category: toll bridges in NYC
      • toll bridges in NY
        • bridges in NY
          • bridges in USA
        • toll bridges in USA
          • bridges in USA
      • bridges in NYC
        • bridges in NY
          • bridges in USA

On each end is one article and one category, with branch paths in between. Gjs238 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been through that and it doesn't make sense. Category:Toll Bridges in the United States and Category:Bridges in New York are both subcategories of Category:Bridges in the United States - so what? It's perfectly fine for the heirachy to flow that way. Articles about toll bridges in NYC can be placed in one cat, Category:Toll Bridges in New York City, and the Wikipedia categorization process will function properly. Gjs238 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I can describe this another way... If one were looking at Category:Bridges in the United States searching for the proper place to locate an article about a toll bridge in NYC, three routes would become apparant - but all terminating at the same subcategory, Category:Toll Bridges in New York City:
1) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Bridges in New York > Category:Bridges in New York City > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.
2) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.
3) Category:Bridges in the United States > Category:Toll Bridges in the United States > Category:Toll Bridges in New York > Category:Toll Bridges in New York City.
Gjs238 (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I see the root issue. About two years ago Sam added the ALLINCLUDED template to several Bridges in XX state pages, including Bridges in New York. This template says
 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.
If this is accepted as meeting the criteria for duplication per WP:SUBCAT, then a toll bridge like the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and the George Washington Bridge would need to be listed in both the parent and child catgories. I do not believe duplication is the correct thing to do and this is what we should discuss. - SCgatorFan (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you think categories are intended for. I don't believe they are for creating a strict hierarchy of articles, I think they are for grouping together like articles. If you use categories to browse articles (which I frequently do), then it helps to have all the toll bridges in New York viewable in that category. It shouldn't matter if the same article is in New York and New York City. If I go to Category:Bridges in New York I want to see all the bridges in New York, not a bunch of subcategories. Cacophony (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think large categories should be broken up into subcategories, so that a category never runs into several pages. If I'm browsing a category, I don't want to see 1000 entries in alphabetical order; I'd rather see 25 sub-categories with 40 entries each. This helps me find what I'm looking for, without being overwhelmed with data.--Appraiser (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I do agree that categories with hundreds or thousands of articles should be split up accordingly, but Category:Bridges in New York has maybe 50 articles. I'd say it is the ideal size for a category and there is no reason to break it down further unless you are trying to enforce a hierarchy. The size of the categories was certainly a large factor in our decision to categorize the bridges in the U.S. by state. Bridges in NY is one of the largest of these and I don't see a need to subdivide it. Cacophony (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Fifty in a category is fine; do all the notable bridge in NY have articles already?--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabrillo Bridge in San Diego

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)

I think I located the bridge. Please check my coords. - Denimadept (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Woot. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

If you're curious what it looks like now, there are (unfree) photos on [1] and its subpages, and free photos at [2] that are suitable for use here. --NE2 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I just noticed that {{Infobox religious building}} 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)

See Geoboxes for Bridges, above. - Denimadept (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ponte Romana Sertã?

I just went looking for the article on this bridge. Y'know, the bridge whose image decorates every {{WikiProject Bridges article}} 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)

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)

[edit] Category:Bridge

Should this really exist separately from Category:Bridges? --NE2 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Rigolets Pass Bridge

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)

[edit] Slovenian bridges at AfD

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)

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

[edit] Tunnels?

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)

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)

[edit] List of bridges on the NHRP

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)

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)

I started List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon as essentially the "test case". --NE2 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
I got it from List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. --NE2 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Lists of bridges on the NRHP are done

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)

[edit] Peer review request

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)

My first impression is: I'm tempted to add {{infobox bridge}} 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)
Correction: there's a Geobox Bridge? oooooooo, nevermind! - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
And now is FA - thanks again to everyone who helped, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)