Talk:Severn crossing

Why is it "The so-called Second Severn Crossing"?? :) Nevilley 23:29 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't write the article (I put the two pics on yesterday) but I agree with you. The bridge (sadly) does have the unromantic title of Second Severn Crossing! I live about 15 miles from it in Bristol.
I was surprised when no special name was given to it, Queen Elizabeth Bridge had been expected.

I think the writer had been trying to say that SSC is its only name.

62.31.92.238 09:53 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote the above message I was not logged in. I am Arpingstone 09:56 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yep, understood, thanks. I wondered if perhaps the original author was trying to point out that it might be viewed as a silly name because there are loads of Severn crossings elsewhere, and that this is more the Second (Gurt Big!) Severn Crossing, or something. However, my speculating about someone else's intentions has little to do with the price of fish, so I shall shut up now. Nice pics!!! Nevilley 17:41 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

"The Anglo-Welsh poet, Harri Webb, wrote these lines:
Two lands at last connected
Across the waters wide,
And all the tolls collected
On the Welsh side.
...a joke which was often repeated. The toll is indeed collected on the English side, and only on vehicles travelling from England to Wales. This arrangement eliminates the need for a set of toll booths for each direction of travel."
In the poem part, an anon has put Welsh in place of English. Is this a valid correction or is it vandalism?
Adrian Pingstone 17:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This (in frames here) and this say that "English" is correct. I couldn't find any sources to support "Welsh", which doesn't even scan. Reverted.--rbrwr

Date for the second crossing?

When was the second bridge built? --jmd 10:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As stated in the article, it opened in 1996. Construction started in April 1992 [1] --rbrwr^± 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Slightly confusing article

The article seemed to confuse the Severn Bridge and first Severn crossing. Surely "First Severn Crossing" should be taken to mean the whole link, including the Wye Bridge, whereas the Severn Bridge is just the suspension bridge element of this? The article used "Severn Bridge" to mean the whole link in one place, and "Severn Crossing" to mean just the suspension bridge in another place.

I've more or less fixed that now.

We should think about how this article relates to the Severn Bridge article. There is some duplicated information, and some things in here might be better in the other article. Perhaps a solution would be to include the information about the Wye Bridge and the viaducts in the Severn Bridge article, and make this an article about the Second Severn crossing? I don't see the need for a separate article on the two crossings together (the need for a second link can be discussed in the SSC article).

I've never heard the term "First Severn Crossing" before, and it certainly wasn't known as that before the second crossing was built (obviously – but it wasn't called the "Severn Crossing" either). JRawle (Talk) 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Extractions

The details about the crossings have been extracted to Severn Bridge and Second Severn Crossing. This page may itself be refactored into those two. See Talk:Severn Bridge for discussion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the image by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) again. This article already has too many images IMHO. I thought of removing one or two more when the articles were reorganised last week. I thought this page should be quite minimal, just short of a disambiguation page, with most of the content under Severn Bridge and Second Severn Crossing. The image is on Second Severn Crossing which is fine. Also, the way it was formatted meant it overlapped one of the other images in my browser (it may have looked OK with a particular font/window size, but not for other people). The image should be added to relevant categories in Wikimedia Commons, then we can put a box at the end of the articles which people can click to see a gallery of photos. JRawle (Talk) 00:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, while it is true that it is high res, it is not more detailed, since most of the details are silhouetted out and blend into the dark or silhouetted background. It doesn't provide anything significant that existing images do not. Additionally, Yummifruitbat should Wikipedia:Assume good faith before going around accusing people of making ignorant edits and of not looking carefully at the full size image. And, probably because of distortion from the stitching, or perhaps just because it's difficult to make out the details, it doesn't even show the shape of the bridge like the other photo does. Certainly it would make a great addition to a gallery on the bridge on commons, and don't especially object to it being on the Second Severn Crossing page. But the little it adds to this page is outweighed by the fact that it's a short article that doesn't have room for too many pictures. Joe D (t) 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It IS more detailed, if viewed on a properly calibrated monitor (see the top of WP:FPC), despite being silhouetted. The only loss through its being silhouetted is the colour of the concrete and algal growth. There is no distortion from the stitching, the difference in apparent shape is due to the location from which the photo was taken - further north than the other photo and looking slightly to the south so that the curvature is not apparent.

Assuming good faith would have been to consider whether reverting my changes altogether was necessary, and then not leaving a dismissive edit summary while replacing the typo and the misleading part of the text which I'd fixed.

As to whether the image adds anything that others don't, how about

1. visible traffic to give some impression of scale
2. the fact that there are lit markers to warn aircraft of the height of the towers
3. some detail (any at all, really) of the cable structure

--Yummifruitbat 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally think Yummifruitbat's image is better. It would round off the article well as a large (750px) pano at the bottom. --Fir0002 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)