Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)
I just made a post on Talk:Tunnel about the apparent tenuous (or perhaps not so tenuous) equation of a tunnel as a bridge. I do see that these two subjects are very closely related, and I wonder if people here would object to tunnels and bridges being combined as one WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels? __meco (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice that the topic has come up before. Let's discuss this with the tunnel people before we ruthlessly Borg them into our collective. - Denimadept (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You will also notice that currently, there is no WP:WikiProject Tunnels. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh? Then you should go create it, then we'll negotiate with you. - Denimadept (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Έ
Exactly. Since there are no organized "tunnel people" there's hardly any point in sitting idle waiting for some to aggregate, is there? Are there any who have reasons not to include tunnels (and hence include the word tunnels in the project name)? __meco (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose a change to "Crossings", to include bridges, tunnels, ferries, fords, pogo sticks, and anything else one can cross with. Okay, maybe leave out the pogo sticks. "Crossings" would be consistent with the various lists of them. - Denimadept (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Both tunnels and bridges have a central element of architecture and structural engineering about them, which may be an important reason for some to be members of this project. Adding ferries would stir up that coherence. __meco (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. So this project would remain under the heading of "civil engineering". - Denimadept (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

BP Pedestrian Bridge

I am having trouble resolving controveries with references refering to handrails that do not exist in the pictures of the BP Pedestrian Bridge. I am not a bridge guy and thought you guys might know a little something about this bridge which is the must artistically beautiful bridge I know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 June 2008

"does not have standard handrails" does not say "does not have handrails". There's plenty of room for non-standard handrails. :-d I've revised a bit in the article to fill out the infobox a bit better. - Denimadept (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has tons of images. What would you mean by non-standard handrails?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The two sources about handrails appear to differ. Reference #5 (the Blair Kamin newspaper review) states, "No handrails to muck things up, just waist-high walls that hold you in." Reference #13 (Architectural Sheet Metal Expertise) says, "They also designed, fabricated and installed a custom #4 brushed stainless steel handrail on the bridge." I'm guessing the newspaper architectural review didn't want to call them handrails (in the traditional sense), while the sheet metal guys installed something they're calling a handrail (in a nontraditional sense). I guess I'd go with saying that there's a non-traditional handrail system. I didn't check the other references to see if they say anything about handrails -- maybe there's some kind of agreement there. Given that it's a Frank Gehry design, anything is possible. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I might even desribe them as parapets. Most railings will be made with openings. If the structure extends up and forms a wall to keep people from falling off, then it is a parapet. - SCgatorFan (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In UK use, a parapet is any edge barrier on a bridge, whether solid or post-and-rail. A "handrail" is the bar that you actually hold with your hand, like the handrail on most staircases; most bridge parapets don't have a handrail. Describing it as a parapet or balustrade is appropriate. -- Kvetner (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge Q2

(moved to separate discussion) By the way, in the statement that the bridge is built to highway standards, do you guys know what that means?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That has to do with the loads this structure can support. The article says it has been designed to withstand a full load of pedestrians, that is, wall-to-wall congestion. Think of the structure that collapsed in a Kansas City hotel in the 80's under the weight of all the people standing on it. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there an area on the project page (that I probably overlooked) where I can add new articles/stubs? I forgot to tag Connecticut Avenue Bridge over Klingle Valley when creating it, but it's done now. I looked through Category:Bridges in Washington, D.C. and tagged some articles that have been around for a while: Charles C. Glover Memorial Bridge, Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Anacostia Railroad Bridge, Amtrak Railroad Anacostia Bridge, Benning Bridge, and New York Avenue Bridge. APK yada yada 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a place where new bridge-related articles show up, but I don't know what it is off-hand. I added the US bridge stub template for Connecticut Ave Bridge article you mentioned. - Denimadept (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. APK yada yada 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge future FA

Compared to Featured articleSan Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, Featured articlePulaski Skyway, and Featured articleCogan House Covered Bridge, Good articleBP Pedestrian Bridge is extremely short. I am wondering if anyone knows architecture, bridge, metalwork or engineering articles that describe the bridge. I am not a bridge guy, but I hoped to bring it to FAC in the future. Any advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties with bridge types

We've found some issues with classification of bridges by type. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil engineering#Issues with bridge types for discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bridge picture: Île aux Tourtes Bridge

Due to the difficulty of finding an adequate spot from which to take a picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge, I took one from more than two miles away, and the result is what it is. To get a better picture, one would have to get on a private boat. Does anyone in Montreal ever sail on the Lac des Deux Montagnes? If so, a better picture of the Île aux Tourtes Bridge would be appreciated. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not willing to charter a boat? Or buy one? Or swim? C'mon, how committed are you? :-DDDD - Denimadept (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to take into account the fact this is all for one picture. :-D --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at a satellite picture of 45°25′N, 73°59′W and you'll see what I'm talking about. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notification

There is a bulk Articles for Deletion nomination discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turner Falls Road Bridge that covers not only the named bridge but several others. You are invited to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any guidance to be found for which bridges should have articles and which probably do not deserve articles? There are certainly hundreds of bridges which are highly notable by any reasonable standard, but there are also thousands of bridges which are fungible 2 lane highway bridges over small creeks or other depressions and practically indistinguishable from one another in their construction, yet which are WP:V verifiable from state highway department databases or maps. If the project's viewpoint is that every bridge which ever verifiably existed deserves an article, then AFDs could serve as a screening method to help create de facto guidelines based on AFD results. A claim for inherent notability for every bridge will find some opposition in AFDs.Edison (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Bridge Notability characteristics include (but are not limited to), being:
  • issued any award during its lifetime
  • any maximum extreme (at any time during its lifetime): longest, highest, tallest, widest, ...
  • a historic bridge, on any one or more of several registers (national, state, engineering organizations, "local" historic societies, ...)
  • a (surviving or rare) example of an architecture, construction, or engineering technique.
  • either in a collection of several other related ones or needed as a link or point of reference between other more notable ones.
The bridges in the Turners Falls AfD nomination fall into several of the above categories.
LeheckaG (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All the criteria sound reasonable except the last one, "part of a collection" or "link or point of reference" which just promotes the serial listing of non-notable things via the "preceded by" - "followed by" gimmick. If there is an historic bridge, then 10 utterly non-notable bridges, the notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Not sure how to word it, but in a "notable collection", the otherwise notables (at least 70%) should outnumber the non-notables; and as to the "link or point of reference" in a series of navigation boxes: (previous, current, next) - guessing that there should NOT be more than 2 or 3 consecutive non-notables. If two or more consecutive "non-notables" exist, then only ONE article page for that "sub-collection" should be created, and should contain a table enumerating what is know about each one (what would normally be in an Infobox). Such sub-collection pages would permit links/navigation to be "unbroken" while preserving factual accuracy. LeheckaG (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The notion you state is appealing, but hard to specify as a guideline and likely to get shot down, based on the fate of other proposed notability guides I have seen, because of the arbitraryness of "70%" etc. Some editors love to create a complete set of entries for something, however non-notable, as if their articles were a coin collection to be completed. There are bound to be independent and reliable sources about any major bridge (beside highway department databases) in newspapers from the state or region ("Old Highway 666 bridge in bad shape," "Legislature appropriates money for new highway 666 bridge," "new bridge open for traffic," etc). Edison (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In the AFD, Peterkingiron suggested "all bridges crossing a major river" as a notability criterion, and I see some sense in it, so long as we can agree that the Nile or the Ohio are major rivers, but what about lesser rivers such as Pahsimeroi River. Where would the line be drawn? And would all bridges in a city which span a river like the Thames or the Chicago River get a presumption of notability? Edison (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify the notion that a bridge spanning a major river is inherently notable. In addition to the concerns expressed by Edison, any bridge spanning the Lower Mississippi is notable, but what about the Upper Mississippi? I mean, what about a bridge that crosses a major river near its source, for example a bridge crossing the Mississippi in Itasca County, Minnesota? --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In other proposed notability guidelines I've dealt with the "presumption of notability" just took something as an indicant that multiple published sources probably existed. If an athlete has competed at the "highest amateur level" then there is a presumption thta newspaper coverage exists. If a bridge spans the Ohio, then there are probably articles about it sufficient to satisfy WP:N. If the bridge spans a river near its origin, then the river may be so small and the bridge so short that there is little except directory type listings, but there are probably at least a couple of regional newspaper articles.Edison (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 25#Turners Falls Road Bridge --NE2 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who do not know what the above means:

  • The Administrator closing the initial "Turner Falls Road Bridge" AFD which was really SIX bridges across the Connecticut River in Connecticut and Massachusetts ignored the Keep vote of the Majority because they apparently did not satisfy some posting criteria. So he ignored the Keep vote of the Majority and when ahead and deleted the SIX bridge articles.
  • The AFD of the six bridges is apparently being appealed, so there is a 4 to 5 day window to vote to "Overturn" their Bulk Deletion. Go to the "Deletion review" link NE2 posted and Vote.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, if you think the deletion was not in error, feel free to vote "endorse". --NE2 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The deletion review aside -- and just a stroke of luck I happened to surf here to ask my next question, because for all the people upset over me not notifying this Wikiproject of the AfD, none of them thought worth informing me of the deletion review -- I'm curious about LeheckaG's assertion that the AfDed articles fulfilled several of the criteria he listed. Which ones, please? What awards did they win? What maximums did they meet? What historic registers are they on? Of what kinds of architecture are they notable and rare surviving examples? Given the extreme opposition to the AfD, though, I wonder whether Edison's surmise that the project's viewpoint that every bridge verified to have ever existed is notable by definition is spot on ... in which case why bother to claim that notability criteria exist at all?  RGTraynor  06:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The answer to that may be that notability is a guideline to help us improve the encyclopedia, and if we can do that and ignore notability, more power to us. When the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapsed, people were surprised that there was already an article on the crossing, yet generally considered it a good thing. I don't know if it was "notable" before the collapse, and I don't really care. --NE2 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football we have found it handy to create an essay on notability for our project. You might find it helpful to do the same.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(nods) We've done the same at WP:HOCKEY, and that was about two weeks worth of wrangling. Has there been a similar process here?  RGTraynor  15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been overturned; almost everyone agreed that the deletion was in error. --NE2 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It still wouldn't hurt to have such an essay, to avoid the next time someone comes up with a such an AfD. It's not like this is the first time. - Denimadept (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge

Come visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll for interest for new Wiki

I'm considering starting a new Wiki for structures, similar to Structurae but easier to work on. This would be about structures, especially including bridges, past, present, and future. This would include proposed structures, and would likely copy quite a bit from Wikipedia such as templates etcetera. Is anyone interested in such a project? - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What is notable?

Let's have a discussion on this topic for use by this project. There are two issues here. A notable bridge goes over a notable river. So we have to distinguish a notable river from a vernal trickle, and we have to distinguish the San Francisco Bay Bridge from a fallen log over a stream.

Is size important? Technical accomplishment? (Iron Bridge) Age? Material used? Designer? Location in a more general way (not all bridges go over water)? Does failure play a part, ala the first attempt at the Quebec Bridge (75 human lives and a notable designer) or the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1 dog and a car and another notable designer)?

And we've got the other end, of a fairly mundane bridge of no particular interest in a notable location which made a big splash (hah) when it failed I-35W Mississippi River bridge and suddenly caught the spotlight and $250M check from the USG.

So, what's notable? Maybe an easier question is, what's not notable? I suspect a regular fallen log bridge is not notable, but maybe it is if it's the first one. Pin-connected truss bridges like Janice Peaslee Bridge used to be entirely non-notable to most of the population because they were so common, but these days such a bridge, especially a new bridge of that sort, would be very unusual, I think (Westfield, Massachusetts#Great River Bridge project). But is that last bridge notable? Is its river?

I suspect part of the issue is a disagreement about the goals of Wikipedia. We're trying to make an encyclopedia. Okay, less than 100 years ago, Encyclopedia Britannica was in one volume. Last I looked, it was in something like 30 volumes with an on-line service as well. We're not bound (hah) by print limitations here. We're not especially limited by storage space either. Nor by number of editors. I think the goal of Wikipedia as stated so far is, at this time, a bit limited. It's not making good use of its main resource, which is a dynamic website which can have not only well established information but up-to-the-minute data related to the subject. For instance, construction schedules related to these bridges on a more systematic basis. Why would people care? They'd want to know in case construction was going to cause them commuting trouble, for one example. Is that not notable? Granted, the information may have an expiration date after which it should be removed. Perhaps that should be on a different web site. Not my call.

I need help filling in the blanks here. - Denimadept (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We can start from what other sources consider to be notable bridges: [3][4] It looks like a 400-500 foot cutoff for over-water bridges might work as a first approximation. On list of bridges on U.S. Route 101 in Oregon, I used 100 feet, but I don't think all of those need articles. Can someone with more skills than me download the National Bridge Inventory and see how many are longer than 400 feet and over water (if possible)? --NE2 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(Current) National Bridge Inventory units are meters; conversion:
Total Bad or No
Data		 < = > < = > < = >
Feet (to Meters) 100 feet (30.5 m) 400 feet (121.9 m) 500 feet (152.4 m)
# 715563 370 405351 3576 259864 509 12225 187 33851
  • NBI Item No.: 49, Name: "Structure Length", Position: 223-228, Length/Type: 6/N (in 1/10ths. of a meter). Above are rough counts of NBI bridges: Total, Bad/No Data, and shorter, equal, and longer than 100, 400 and 500 feet. LeheckaG (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got that, but I haven't decoded it yet. I've not yet figured out what kind of operations I want to do on the data. - Denimadept (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, wooden covered bridges used to be relatively non-notable/common. Today since there are relatively few surviving examples compared to how many were built, Surviving wooden covered bridges are generally notable.
Bridges which are on a National Register of Historic Places, HABS/HAER/HALS, state historic lists/registers, or historical society/professional rosters, ... would generally be notable. I guess a general notability question would be what is the expected lifetime for a given type of bridge (or bridges on the average) and has this bridge exceeded its expected lifetime? In Pennsylvania, the average bridge lifespan was estimated as 49 to 50 years, while part of Ontario Canada estimated theirs to be 60 to 70 years.
Apparently, the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River resulting in 46 deaths prompted the U.S. Congress to mandate the National Bridge Inventory and regular bridge inspections. The 2007 collapse of the Minneapolis I-35 bridge killed 13 and injured nearly 100, and was built in 1967 (40 years ago). National Bridge Inspection Standard generally requires bridge inspections at least once every two years (it varies from 1 to 4 years depending on various conditions). Alaska's (8) oldest bridges were built in 1900. The National Bridge Inventory 2007 ZIP/Ascii download version contains 715,563 bridge entries going back to (2) built in 1800; and (856) with blank " " and (2) with just "19 " (century but no year) Year built information. In 2007, omitting the 858 (856+2) "bad" entries, the average US NBI Year built is 1968 (1967.90), making the average age of a U.S. bridge 40 years old. The "design lifespan" of a US bridge is usually shorter than that (usually 20 to 40 years) so the majority of US bridges are 50% to 100% beyond their design lifespan and have not been replaced because of the immense backlog and lack of sufficient funding. These statistics will vary widely from state to state. Age (either "very" old or new) can be one of the significant factors influencing notability.
US National Bridge Inventory 2007
State Count Bad/No
Data		 Oldest Average
US 715563 858 1800 1967.90
AK 1375 17 1900 1979.95
CT 5426 1832 1963
MA 5660 2 1822 1953.15
OH 33229 1850 1965.35
Bridges which were the highest/tallest, longest, widest, at some point during their lifetime are relatively easy notables.
With a few exceptions (usually for other notability reasons), bridges solely for man-made reasons (i.e. "crossings, highway interchanges, ...) would generally be non-notable.
while the majority of bridges over "majors" natural features (valleys, canyons, water, ...) might more generally be notable. i.e. If a natural feature can generally be forded or easily gone around, then it might not be notable.
If someone would like to see specific statistics, let me know what you would like to see and I can dig up the numbers and post them. Like if anyone wants to see the number, oldest and average Year built for the other US states?

LeheckaG (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • NBI Item No.: 37, Name: "Historical significance", Position: 188, Length/Type: 1/N.

The historical significance of a bridge involves a variety of characteristics:

  • the bridge may be a particularly unique example of the history of engineering;
  • the crossing itself might be significant;
  • the bridge might be associated with a historical property or area; or
  • historical significance could be derived from the fact the bridge was associated with significant events or circumstances.
NBI Historical significance
Code # Description
1 1602 Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places.
2 3550 Bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
3 14588 Bridge is possibly eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (requires further investigation before determination can be made) or bridge is on a State or local historic register.
4 96247 Historical significance is not determinable at this time.
5 496003 Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
"" or " " 103573 Bad or No Data

LeheckaG (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the recent AFD debate:

At 707 feet (215 m) the Route 10 bridge is among the 3.12% of the nation's longest, and among the longest 2.73% in Massachusetts. So while it is not yet "historical" ... If someone is interested, I could do queries comparing its length while ignoring bridges built later to determine its relative rankings at the time when it was built? LeheckaG (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you organize your copy of the DB, LeheckaG?

Okay, so we've got

  1. Age
  2. NBI historical significance value, which will need some kind of backing
  3. engineering significance (structure type, material, size, special architecture, disaster/failure)
  4. special location
  5. perhaps rarity (covered bridge, transporter bridge perhaps?, I dunno what else)
  6. ???

- Denimadept (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had downloaded the NBI 2007 ASCII/ZIP (about 50 MB) and extracted it (about 300 MB) to the StateYear.txt files. I am an experienced Engineer/Unix systems programmer/administrator so writing short programs or scripts to do various queries of the text and count/average, filter, or sort is not a big deal (most are "one-liners"). Since Wiki is already running SQL databases, I wish there was a way to create Project-created/oriented tables of "Source Data" so that standard queries could be done (on Wiki, in particular from within articles). Proposed source data would be: "dumps" of National Register of Historic Places, National Bridge Inventory, USGS Geographic Names, ... With the raw source data available on Wiki - many "list" articles could be reduced to a query surrounded by some formatting and a text description. Likewise with US Census data, that way "annual" updates for each of those could be done by updating the source data without needing to go in an update each affected article. I am not sure if Commons, ToolServer, WikiSource or elsewhere would be the appropriate venue? LeheckaG (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking about "creating" articles on the fly, I'm already doing something similar to that in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football with head football coaches. You can see examples of the work by going to my user page and browsing any of the coach templates there. Many of the articles have been "picked up" by other editors and combined/grown/edited/etc.
The process involves taking raw data from the college football data warehouse and "building" a wiki-text file around that data. I then "cut-n-paste" upload to make sure I don't overwrite anything and can combine existing articles "on the fly" -- it's still a manual process, but I can do a block of one school's history of head football coaches in about 30 minutes. I'm sure a similar process could be duplicated here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I had written scripts to put WikiText around table contents extracted from authoritative sources (like Lakes and Rivers from USGS GNIS to create "List of ..." articles), but then you create a "perpetual" update issue.
U.S. Census data is probably the most extreme case where the source data changes creating an update issue. Similarly, the National Bridge Inventory data is published annually. I did a little more research, and it is possible to request a Wiki "ToolServer" account (I am not sure about the nomination/approval process is) which gives one read access to replicated Wiki tables and the ability to create shared Username_Tablename_P tables ('P' apparently means Public) which can be read by other ToolServer programs/scripts and users. The "missing piece" is the ability to perform a "canned" SQL query within WikiText (placing the results into a WikiTable or other Cascading Style Sheet construction). For instance if the NBI was available on ToolServer, then a Bridge article instead of embedding NBI data as text would be able to instead embed an SQL query specifying which bridge and which statistic(s) to retrieve (in a Geobox/Infobox, inline in text, in tables, ...) Similarly, a "List of ..." article would instead set up the table format/style and then include a "canned" query retrieving all bridges matching a given criteria (Like "NRHP" and "Ohio"). LeheckaG (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another notability criteria would be if the bridge has a Nationally-recognized official name (USGS "official" Board on Geographic Names bridges by state):

USGS GNIS
State #
AK 5
CT 107
MA 111
OH 223

CT/MA bridges were the subject of the recent AFD which stirred this up; I am an AK resident and grew up in OH (in case anyone wondered why I have been listing those examples out of the 50 states and US territories). LeheckaG (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking how to program it, LeheckaG, just how you organized it. It sounds like you just kept them as flat files. I was thinking to insert them in a MySQL db and then can some queries.
Anyway, that's not really the topic here. We can discuss how we want to modify the underlying MediaWiki software later. The issue right now is Notability. - Denimadept (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A few random thoughts for openers. First off, when talking about notability as linked to an event, that's an absolute; Tacoma Narrows and the I-35 bridges have, as WP:N stipulates, received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and are notable for that reason alone, the pre-event notability of the span notwithstanding. Secondly, WP:WEASEL is pertinent: it isn't enough to suggest that a bridge "may" be "significant," "may" be historic, "could" be derived etc. There must be reliable sources claiming that outright, inference and interpretation free. Thirdly, are you writing articles about the bridges or about the crossings? If the former, then it's inappropriate to argue the notability of the present span based on prior bridges on or around that location; if a prior bridge was notable, an article may be appropriate for that span ... but that has nothing to do with the current bridge. Finally, criteria based around superlatives always play well, while subjective ones (X% of bridges in a particular geographical region, all bridges over a certain river (and who decides what rivers are significant enough?)) don't.  RGTraynor  20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, an article about the crossing is more useful than a single bridge as the reason for the existence of a more recent bridge is directly related to the former bridge. One can then discuss all bridges at a particular crossing location in a single article rather then splitting them up. Certainly, bridges on the NRHP or a state historic bridge list should be inclluded. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's no question that anything on the NRHP is notable, which leads to a tangential thought - are there notability standards in place for buildings, and if so, which of them might be applicable here?  RGTraynor  22:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there is one for buildings that is currently being proposed. For bridges, however, being a transportation infrastructure, guidelines for things like railway stations or roads/highways might be more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Then there's things like bridges for art. See Bridge of Flowers, which should probably have its own article. - Denimadept (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually thought about writing an article for the Bridge of Flowers at one point, but in truth there isn't really a great deal to write; the history even held by the local trolley museum is scant beyond the bare facts that some maniac, in the heyday of intercity trolleys, thought it'd be a paying proposition to have a trolley run between two Berkshire villages in the middle of nowhere, built a wee bridge to pull it off, and the local townsfolk had a novel notion on what to do with the thing when the trolley went broke.  RGTraynor  03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
A good example of articles being about crossings rather than physical bridges: London Bridge and London Bridge (Lake Havasu City). --NE2 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Then there's WP:PAPER. - Denimadept (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed so, and to quote from that policy: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." (emphasis in the original)  RGTraynor  17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

Recently, I pointed out that a bridge that crosses the Mississippi in Itasca County, Minnesota is not necessarily notable, given that in that area the Mississippi is just a small stream that can be spanned by a fallen log (okay, maybe not that small). I think any bridge that is notable because of its size would make any other bridge downstream from it inherently notable in most cases. Let's understand: the 18-lane-wide bridge of Ontario Highway 401 over Etobicoke Creek will never become notable on its own unless it collapses. When I'm talking about size, it's mostly length. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was what NE2 was proposing above that there be a set cutoff of 400-500 ft for water crossings, which appears to be what other lists of "notable" bridges are using. While somewhat arbitrary, it would be a convenient and easy rule. --Polaron | Talk 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1501 articles are assigned to this project, of which 162, or 10.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Bridges article}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Hi, I've added another featured picture to your gallery. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

how tag bridge articles covered by this project?

To the List of bridges in the United States, I just added "WikiProject Bridges" template, but I think that indicates the list is a member of the wikiproject, not that it is an article covered by the wikiproject. I don't see any scoring system here, how many articles are covered by this wikiproject. Anyhow, how do I add a bridge article or a list of bridges article to the wikiproject? There are 50 or more bridges lists covering bridges listed on the NRHP in the U.S. to add right now. Please advise! :) doncram (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, found an example: "WikiProject Bridges article|class=B" for an individual bridge, or "WikiProject Bridges article|class=list" for a list. I took the liberty of expanding on the brief "Article Template" section of wp:Bridges to make the template easier to find. Also, still, where/how do you see how many articles are covered by the wikiproject? doncram (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See the pages at the bottom of Category:Bridge articles by quality, in particular Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bridge articles by quality statistics. --NE2 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notification

There is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakwella Bridge that might be of concern to project members.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bridge

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The first railway suspension bridge, Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, requests a Peer Review and Assessment

Hi, I would like to invite the project to review the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge after my 13-fold expansion. I would also like the project to assess this bridge's importance to the project and if it qualifies as A-class before I bring it to FAC. I feel the bridge is an important bridge both locally and internationally; it was:

  • the first successful railway suspension bridge, disproving the general opinion then that suspension bridges could not handle trains,
  • the first bridge that started John A. Roebling's distinctive style,
  • part of the Underground Railroad,
  • made a symbol of inspiration for the United States in its rebuilding after the civil war.

Please take a look and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. Thank you.

The first railway suspension bridge is now at FAC

Please take a look at the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and leave comments at its FAC. Thank you Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Live load capacities

I have been informed that BP Pedestrian Bridge was designed for a live load of 100psf. What does this mean and can you help me compare this to a standarad, policy, regulation, law, or something similar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Complicated topic. PSF would be pounds-per-squarefoot, I expect, but I'm likely wrong. For Ohio loading standards, see [5], as an example of what's complicated about this and how they answered it in Ohio. An example of its use is at Smolen-Gulf Bridge, a new covered bridge supposed to be opened yesterday. Hm, I wonder if that happened? - Denimadept (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been given further information that the 100 psf live load is a general loading requirement for the City of Chicago for areas where the public can assemble. I need to find city code I guess. Any advice would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Does Chicago have a city engineer or department of transportation office? - Denimadept (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The requirement you are looking for would be contained in the structural code that was used to design the bridge. 100 pounds per square foot of live load is about right for anywhere you would expect people to gather at maximum density (shoulder to shoulder). For a reference, you can look here, where the author can be quoted to say that "for corridors and lobbies, the code requires a live load of 100 psf." If you had a set of the structural plans, they would state which code the structural engineer used. He could have used either the current building code adopted by the city of Chcago (likely the Internation Building Code (IBC)) or the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges. The city's code is constantly updated, se even if you find their current version on-line (which I easliy did), you will not know what code was in effect at the time the plans were approved by the city (and transportation dept since it crossed their road). Either way, this is probably more detail than needed for a Wikipedia article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear features

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as bridges, tunnels, roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 4 October 2008, at 03:04.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.