This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
The information about which suspension bridges are the largest are from january 2001, so if anybody knows of any other bridges, then them in.Christian
Adrian I think that your on your small photo the resolution is very limited for the thin details of the bridge. I had the idea to rework your photo as a panoramic to have small size in Ko and good details :
Absolutely wonderful, I like very much, go ahead. I realised the bridge looked very thin when I placed it in the article so your panorama is a great solution. Will you put the pic in the article or shall I?
I think it's a bit unclear, i have some up-close pictures of a suspension bridge if you're interested ( here ) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:59, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Ævar: why not upload them and see if we can use them? Mat-C 01:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This was undone as the image was considered too wide. I implemented it as a centered, text isolated thumb, 15 months later. Size may be set in the thumb declaration if considered still too wide but this should fit 800 pix wide screens. -- Leonard G. 00:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This note follows commented directions in the text to look here. An editor had them swapped.
1.) A catenary is the form taken by a chain or flexible cable when suspended at two ends. The tension and height of each end will determine the angles involved at the end, but for discussion, assume equal height - as would be seen in a cable suspension bridge before the suspender cables and deck are added.
2.) If loads are applied to a slack cable, equal loads with equal horizontal spacing, and the weight of the cable is considered zero, the cable will form an arc described mathematically by a parabola. Since the weight of the cable is not zero, the true form will be somewhere in between the two curves, but as the deck load is considerably greater than the weight of the cable, the curve is usually described as parabolic.
3.) As an aside, the catenary may be inverted to form a compression arch. In such an arch constructed from appropriately angled wedges there will be no shear forces on the wedges. A simple kiln may be constructed as follows: Determine the arch to be constructed in height and width and suspend a heavy cord or light chain near a piece of plywood. Trace the arc onto the plywood and cut out the arch. Make a duplicate and connect them with lathing or light material. This may then be used as a form for firebricks, using fireclay as morter to obtain the appropriate angles. The form must be elevated slightly on wedges so that it may be lowered and removed upon completion. Once the brick arch is complete the form is lowered and removed, leaving a self supporting arch. This may be repeated in a linear fashion to construct a long kiln from a short form. The catenary shape has the advantage that expansion and contraction of the bricks with changes in temperature do not induce additional stresses in the structure. This catenary shape was used to form the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Gateway Arch in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
-- Leonard G. 00:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-- Point 2) here seems incorrect. If many small equally spaced loads hang vertically from a cable (as in a suspension bridge) then the effect is simply to increase the effective mass per unit length of the cable. So the equilibrium shape is the same as that of a heavy cable, namely a catenary. Perhaps parabolas are commonly used as an approximation in practice, but that is a different, weaker, statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.100.189 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following phrase, in the first section about construction, is a little bit unclear and I was wondering if someone with more expertise than I have could fix it: "If bedrock cannot be reached, pilings are driven to bedrock or hard soil, or a large concrete pad may be constructed." Seems to me that we're saying that if bedrock can't be reached, we need to reach bedrock. --Edisk 03:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now written: ...or a large concrete pad to distribute the weight over less resistant soil may be constructed, first preparing the surface with a bed of compacted gravel.
The Izmit Bridge in Turkey is now the 2nd longest bridge in the world. There are also several others under construction that will be near the top of the list. There is no info in Wikipedia about the Izmit Bridge. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I started an article (see Izmit Bay Bridge. Please add info if you have it. Thanks -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While several websites list the Izmit bridge as having been completed in 2002 or 2004, I have not found any first hand account of its opening. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd appreciate hearing from you, or just update the article. -- Samuel Wantman 06:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I like this wooden one over the others, although the quote suggests it's not beautiful. How about changing the original quote to "Many find this kind of bridge...etc." Likewise, I do like it as in image in contrast to the others, however I believe we ought to try to circumvent the subjective nature of aesthetic. Kingerik21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read at Silver Bridge that a manufacture fault in an eyebar caused the collapse that killed dozens of people. Eyebar wasn't explained so I came to this site to find out what it is. It's menitoned in this article too, but also not explained. Anyone with an engineering bent care to elaborate? Moriori 01:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like this new arrangement. I wish you had discussed it first. I think the two other bridges are minor topics. This is the topic that should be called a suspension bridge. What was wrong with the old arrangement? Now the Category:Suspension bridges has a different name than the topic article, and the wording of the articles are all using the term "suspension bridge". That means every reference to "suspension bridge" has to be disambiguated. The other two minor bridges were easy to find from this article. It made more sense the way it was before. I'd like to restore it back. -- Samuel Wantman19:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that right now, we can refine later. Now done.
1) I changed the taxobox image to an earlier with the following rational - when a good image is available of an early version of the type that is to be preferred in the taxobox (unless this is confusing in an informational sense - see below),
2)The bridge article index should use the same image in the index gallery to provide a visual continuity across pages.
I'm wondering about the caption of the taxobox. Perhaps it should be "primary force(s)". I don't understand your comment #1 above.
If you use the same image in the index and on the bridge's page, I'd vote to restore the Golden Gate bridge picture. It is about as iconic as a bridge can be. --Samuel Wantman07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What motivated this was the submission of the log bridge, which I think is an excellent article header, being one of the few foundational types. The image shows clarity of purpose and function. The problem with using an iconic bridge is that it is subject to replacement by editors who think that their bridge is more iconic than the one presented. There is also the matter of information overload: a bridge such as Tower Bridge makes a poor example of a bascule bridge because there is so much extra information - is its basculeness its towers, the upper linking bridge, the iron side suspenders, or what? (Just some thoughts posted for critical review). Also, I don't understand the taxobox (e.g. {{template:BridgeTypePix}} stuff - do you want to add a "primary forces employed" item to the template (that's a good idea)? (This would of course then use the forces from the taxonomy chart column in which the type appears.) Or are you referring to the taxonomy chart?
The Golden Gate Bridge is cited in the beginning of the article as an aesthetic example (spelled correctly now!). Then there is the picture of the ugly bridge. It makes for a better article to use the Golden Gate as an example picture. It can be justified by the article. It is also an excellent example of a suspension bridge. It is iconic, famous all over the world, beautiful, a representative sample of the type, and it fits into the text of the article. Isn't this sufficient reason? Also, it was the heading of the taxonomy chart I was referring to. -- Samuel Wantman18:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anon reversions of vandalism may not be complete or appropriate restorations - please compare across a wider range of anon edits. Wikilinks were lost in a recent series which I have restored. I have also seen sneaky deletions in other articles embedded in a series of legitimate edits (Oil refinery) Thanks - Leonard G.02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It happened again, but this time by a registered user. see anon edit 26 Jan 2006 (deletion of images), followed 28 min later by registered user cleanup that made this look legitimate. Leonard G.03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding your inquiry above (the use of GGBr?) - it is simply too iconic for my taste. Its use is just too predictable. The current image (Brunell's suspension bridge) that I selected is certainly relevant (it is one of the first and still in use), and it introduces an additional concept - the use of eyebar chain rather than wire, the latter well documented in the construction sequence. It is also a good quality image, nicely composed. - Leonard G.01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one watching this page? Huge sections were taken out, note the sequence starting with a few words (IP 81.99.134.105 at that time) - also deleted massively in File locking 8 Sept. and Tacoma Narrows Bridge 12 Sept. (the latter with addtion of some only remotely relevant text. Please help monitor articles agaist deltionist vandals, who may take only a word or paragraph, or even entire sections. Thanks, Leonard G.02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understan the counter-intuitive choice of "Largest" in lieu of "Longest" for suspension bridge comparison. It has long (pun intended) been a basis of classification description in both the professional and popular literature about them as well as in popular usage (a Google search resulted in: 650 "largest suspension bridges" / c. 11,000 "longest suspension bridges") RCEberwein21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Suspension Origin
If Anyone knows the suspension bridge origin please post it on this web site!
I've removed the Real Fernando bridge from the "famous bridges" section, it was claimed to be the first suspension bridge in continental Europe, but was in fact predated by numerous bridges, including for example Marc Seguin's Annonay footbridge (1822); the St Antoine Bridge in Geneva (1823), designed by Guillaume Henri Dufour; and the Tournon-Tain L'Hermitage bridge by the Seguin brothers (1825). I will have a good go at the history of suspension bridges if I get time (it is a major exercise), but would suggest in general that if a bridge hasn't got an article of its own (i.e. is still red-linked), it is hard to see how it qualifies as a "famous" suspension bridge. -- Kvetner17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tournon-Tain bridge was designed for vehicles, according to Tom F Peters' book on Dufour. In any event, I don't think the type of load is significant: the St Antoine Bridge was the world's first permanent wire cable suspension bridge, and is therefore historically important in a way that the Real Fernando bridge was not. -- Kvetner20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice to see the photos, but I would regard Peters' book as more authoritative, given his fairly meticulous reference to the primary sources. The photo of the Tournon-Tain bridge in particular appears to be the Seguins' second bridge at the site, not their original 1825 one. See for example [1], [2] and [3]. I am not sure you can even claim that the Real Fernando bridge is the oldest in Europe still to carry vehicular traffic, ever since its 1998 refurbishment, when most of the bridge was completely replaced, see [4] - I have a full copy of this paper, which states the bridge was converted to a footbridge and leaves it unclear whether even the original cables survive. -- Kvetner11:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind information, I was wrong, excuse me.But, may I say it is the first in Italy and was destroyed only by war event in Second World War?
I don't know it certainly, but I think cables aren't the original.
The towers and the anchorage sphinxes are original.
Do you not think to mention it as "one of the oldest in Europe and the first in Italy" ?
Now, it isn't yet unknown...do you think ? (Please, excuse my very bad english...)
--Emmeauerre due19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it isn't famous enough to be in "other famous suspension bridges", especially since it doesn't have its own article (a problem with two others already in that list). I think it would be better to get an article written for it first. I think the various Seguin and Dufour bridges were more historically significant in terms of being oldest suspension bridges in Europe. The whole suspension bridge article is getting a bit too big and is in need of a big overhaul plus splitting off various sections such as the construction sequence bit. I reckon the history could be split off into a separate article, taking most of the "other famous suspension bridges" with it into a timeline - I think this would be a suitable place to link the Real Fernando bridge, once it has its own article. -- Kvetner21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Construction Sequence/Suspender Cables there is the word swedge- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swedge. Is this supposed to be wedge? If so I still don't understand it in this context. What is this end like?
I removed the following seemingly spurious reference to a well-known lenticular truss bridge
(An exception is the Royal Albert Bridge (1859) where the anchors are replaced by an arch between the columns.)
It didn't fit in with a discussion of the structure of a suspension bridge. While there are certain very interesting aspects of a suspension bridge in a lenticular truss bridge, and someone who knows more than I may want to fit it into the body of the article, it didn't belong where it was.TjoeC (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now getting a bit more free time and hoping to edit this article soon (a few piecemeal changes made to day to help prep the patient for major surgery). But if anyone else wants to chip in please do!
Cut down the intro, too long
Expand the history section to cover Finley, Seguin, Dufour, Chaley etc in more detail
Add a note on a further type, the underspanned suspension bridge
I have tried to untangle the confusion in the article between "suspension bridge" and its subtype that appears to be the true subject of this article, the "suspended deck bridge" also known as "suspended-deck suspension bridge". I hope I succeeded. Content removed from this article will be merged into others. --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I think this article should be moved back to suspension bridge. Naming guidelines say that article titles should be the name most commonly used. In common usage I've never heard anyone call suspended deck bridges anything other than a "suspension bridge". I have no problem with disambiguating the different types at the beginning of the article and making it clear that this article is about suspended deck bridges, commonly called "suspension bridges". -- ☑ SamuelWantman19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been named Suspension bridge since 2002, and that is certainly the best name for the article, not suspended deck or suspended-deck or any other variation. It is, quite simply, what most people are looking for when they type in "suspension bridge". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should one type of suspension bridge monopolize the name of the whole class? That's like arguing that Bridge should be about beam bridges and let's just move all the others to Bridge types. The strongest argument against this requested move is the primary topic argument that one type of suspension bridge is primary to the other types. However, no one type of suspension bridge is primary to all suspension bridges taken together. So the primary topic argument favors moving Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hat note could probably have been better written (or even removed and worked into the text in a better manner), but it does not warrant moving the material. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article formerly was Suspended-deck suspension bridge; it was unilaterally moved in 2005, and since then has been subject to ongoing additions and deletions of content about suspension bridges of other types (hence the hatnote). To me, that chronic instability is good reason to return the article to its original page name and to make Suspension bridge an article about suspension bridges in general, starting with the content now at Suspension bridge types. But, I am open to other page names, if sufficiently precise. --Una Smith (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly, what this type of bridge is called depends on the context. It is called a suspended-deck bridge, to distinguish it from other suspension bridges; and it is called a suspension bridge, to distinguish it from other suspended-deck bridges. On Wikipedia, where it has to be distinguished from both, I think it makes sense to call it a suspended-deck suspension bridge. Think of it as a precise descriptive term, rather than a proper name. --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are always only two outcomes from an AfD, Keep or Delete. Speedy close in this case meant "Keep", as it was a "mistaken nomination". It's like getting pregnant, no one is "a little bit pregnant", or "possibly pregnant". You either are or you aren't. Articles either get deleted or kept. There are no other possible outcomes. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. We are talking apples and oranges, "content" and "title". The reason I nominated it at AfD is because the title "suspended deck bridge" needs to be deleted. It is fallacious. You have been around enough to know that there are other options in the AfD process. "Merge and Redirect" is a popular enough one. This option says that the material is worth having but the subject does not warrant its own article. (To use your analogy, I guess that one "you think you are pregnant but we have all realized that you need a surrogate mother to carry the baby.") I feel confident I could find examples at AfD that resulted in "MERGE AND DELETE", where the title is not kept and the content is. So I did not see an issue with a nomination to "MOVE and DELETE", where content is kept and the title deleted. The admin simply said that that since there was not a question about deleting the material currently contained in the article Suspended deck bridge, that the decision to (1) delete or (2) keep or (3) redirect the title "Suspended deck bridge" was better resolved through the Requested move process that was already under way. So, while I would agree that the AfD decision was to keep the material contained in the article, the Admin did not resolve my nomination, which was MOVE (the material back) AND DELETE the title "suspended deck bridge". He pushed it back here. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if I had not raised the AfD flag, this string of edits would have continued to propogate throughout articles in the WP:WikiProject Bridges. There would not have been enough input on the base issue of validity of the names to get him to slow down and discuss. To me, your opinion that the AfD process was inappropriate for this discussion was that: your opinion. User:TenPoundHammer says that he does "non-admin closures" and he did not close the AfD. He said delete. User:Salix alba is an admin; he didn't close the process. He commented once and said "merge". User:LinguistAtLarge is an admin. He didn't close; he said keep. So others familiar with the process and policies at hand did not share your opinion to speedy close. And some did. There were posting that asked "why are here at AfD. So, thanks for the WP:BITE instead of "stongly" suggesting a constructive way for me to obtain the input needed. WP:WikiProject Bridges is not a very active group. It is hit or miss sometimes because let's face it, we are more concerned with designing and building bridges in real life. On the issue at hand in this discussion (creation of fallacious names for bridge article), I will admit that I am being pretty rude on this issue. This is because I feel that the Una Smith is being obstinate in his opinion that these are valid names. He only needs provide WP:Reliable Sources to shut me up. I have searched and searched myself. I have asked others to search. No sources, yet his opinion is still that it belongs in Wikipedia. On other issues, I am being very polite and inquisitive on the edits Una Smith is making. I am verifying his sources and helping him to shape the text he adds to that articles so that it is accurate from a bridge engineering perspective. He has actually complimented me for that on my talk page, so I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank him. BTW, my opinion is that the transcluded text from WP:Articles for deletion/Suspended deck bridge does no harm in being here. But I recognize that it's just an opinion and will not revert that edit a second time (Una removed it once also). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the BITE - I don't do well when scared. What if you had done the same thing to an article that didn't have so much history behind it? And people hadn't looked at the history to see that it was a long-standing article with a recent move?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are reliable sources that provide evidence that a suspension bridge of the type that has a deck suspended from the main cables is called a Suspension bridge.
Waddell, J.A.L. (1916). Bridge Engineering - Volume 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 1918. Suspension Bridge. – A roadway supported from chain or wire cables, usually hung between massive towers of masonry and securely attached to abutments. Also called a wire bridge.
Tonias, Demetrios E. (2006). "The Structure: The Bridge Engineering Lexicon". Bridge Engineering(Google books) (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 36. ISBN9780071459037. Retrieved 2009-03-30. Suspension Bridge A bridge in which the roadway is suspended from two or more cables hanging from tower structures.{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
So these are two engineering textbooks, published ninety years apart that both define suspension bridge as one where the deck is "supported from" or "suspended from" the main cables.
Waddell, J.A.L. (1916). Bridge Engineering - Volume 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 21. The first American suspension bridge of modern type, with horizontal floor suspended from the cables, was constructed about 1796 by James Finley.
The article uses the term Suspension bridge exactly 10 times. It never uses the term suspended-deck suspension bridge. As a matter of fact, it never even mentions that the deck is suspended at all. (On a side note, I was fortunate enough to meet Jim Cooper before he retired. A super nice guy and stellar bridge engineer who probably desrves a page in Wikipedia.)
PLEASE NOTE that despite the fact that this article by Jim Cooper NEVER uses the term "suspended-deck suspension bridge", Una Smith did not stop from using the term when he entered it into Wikipedia. REGARDLESS of any repeated discussion here, Una Smith seems convinced that he is right. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PennySpender1983, your point is not in dispute, and also proves nothing. Many other reliable sources show that other types of suspension bridge also are called suspension bridges. --Una Smith (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Suspension bridges.—A suspension bridge consists of two or more chains, constructed of links connected by pins, or of twiste wire strands, or of wires laid parallel. The chains pass over lofty piers on which they usually rest on saddles carried by rollers, and are led down on either side to anchorages in rock chambers. A level platform is hung from the chains by suspension rods."
And if I produce reliable sources that show it is a "suspended deck bridge", then what? Anyway, this RM conflicts with two RMs that have yet to close. --Una Smith (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you take offense at my seeking input from fellow project members. I placed no opinion on their talk pages, only made a note so that they would know a discussion had arisen and that their input might be valuable. That was something I learned one time I made a disputed change, rally the troops. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of historical interest: Note that this problem appeared first in August 2005 with my attempted renaming of this article. My creation of the "types" article and the "hat" note at that time was an attempt at clarity and reader guidance while retaining this article name as appropriate to what most people would expect to see when searching for "suspension bridge". I support the reversion, pick any name you want for the type noted here, it does not matter except to note (somehow) that this article title is not the general use of the term Suspension Bridge. - Leonard G. (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. "Support[ing] the revision" means using "suspension bridge" for the name of the article for "the type noted here". I can see from the earlier discussion that using any other name than "suspension bridge" was no more popular then than today. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While a single-plank footbridge is a "suspension bridge" in the broadest possible sense, that is not what readers who type in that phrase are looking for. Move accordingly. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is fallacy in Una Smith's argument. Wikipedia is not a source of material. Everything we do here must be sourced. There are numerous sources which define the term "suspension bridge" as a bridge that has suspension cables with a deck hung level below it. It has been this way for one hundred years. In the span of a few weeks, this editor has taken it upon himself to say that "suspension bridge" does not mean what WP:Reliable sources say it is because there are sub-types or related types that use the word "suspension bridge" within their name (Self-anchored suspension bridge or Simple suspension bridge). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The last time this was moved to a name like this it only stayed for five hours before it was moved back, and for the same reason - the primary topic, and common name, is "suspension bridge" and this article should have that name. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request to MOVE and DELETE and that I posted for Suspended deck bridge in WP:AFD. That discussion/decision was pushed back to this talk page because it could be handled during a requested move process. You have completed a MOVE and REDIRECT. Did you determine that "suspended deck bridge" is a valid term and that it is appropriate for that title to redirect to the suspension bridge article? Please clarify your action. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you move a page, it automatically creates the redirect. Do you think that Suspended deck bridge should point somewhere else? The editing and deletion of that redirect is separate from the issue of where this article should be. I have not made any determination about the redirect. Frankly, I do not think it is likely that someone will type in "Suspended deck bridge", nor link many articles to it, so I really don't think it matters much what happens to the redirect. Most of the few links to it that already exist were added recently. Since this is a wiki, if someone is redirected to a destination that they think is inappropriate, they will change the link to something better. If someone thinks it should be deleted, they will nominate it for deletion. -- ☑ SamuelWantman20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources for simple suspension bridges with decks suspended (hung) beneath the suspension cables.
Morley, Arthur (1912). "197. Simple Suspension Bridge". Theory of Structures(google books). London: Longman, Greens & Co. p. 482. Retrieved 2009-04-02. In a simple unstiffened suspension bridge, the load is carried by a relatively flexible platform or roadway, (as indicated by) RS (Fig. 283).{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |month=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
Review the diagram in the book as it clearly shows the suspended deck. The next section of the book is "Stiffened Suspension Bridges" (p. 484) where the author says that adding stiffening girders makes the bridge "statically indeterminate." He goes on to say an explanation (treatment) on how to calculate the forces in such an "indeterminate" structure is beyond the scope of his book.
Bovey, Henry Taylor. "13. Modifications of the simple suspension Bridge". Theory of structures and strength of materials(Google books) (4th ed.). New York: J. Wiley & Sons. pp. 874–876. Retrieved 2009-04-02. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |month=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
This source book does not explicitly define a "simple suspension bridge." Instead it uses the term in the title of a section and explains how to modify one by "stiffening it." However, each of the diagrams in the section clearly shows a bridge where the deck is suspended beneath the suspension cables.
Chisolm, Hugh. The Encyclopedia Britannica(Google books). Retrieved 2009-04-02. The merit of the simple suspension bridge is its cheapness, and its defect is its flexibility.{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |month=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
This reference does not explicitly define "simple suspension bridge", however it uses the term in running text. It mentions the consequences of having such a flexible structure ( the collapse of the Angers Bridge which had a suspended deck). It goes on to describe the history of efforts to "stiffen" suspension bridges.
I have not yet seen O'Kon's main article. I have seen the National Geographic reference. It is a short column on the Geographica page, with an artist's line drawing after O'Kon's computer rendering, which is on the web. Both show (excuse me) a suspended deck suspension bridge. I have not yet read the evidence for it being a suspension bridge, much less a suspended deck suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which concerns the "suspended-deck" type of suspension bridge, has a fundamental problem of scope. In short, "suspension bridge" has two different meanings: one corresponds to the broad meaning used in Suspension bridge types; the other corresponds to the narrow meaning of just the one type. The ongoing requested moves re which of two articles will occupy the page name Suspension bridge will determine the page name of this article. However, that will not resolve the problem of the scope of this article. Regardless of its page name, this article needs to be rewritten so that it addresses only the suspended-deck type of suspension bridge, not all suspension bridges. --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? Funny, I thought the consensus was going towards this being an article on SUSPENSION BRIDGES. If you can't accept that, maybe you need to step away from it for a few days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cognitive dissonance between the title "suspension bridge" and the actual scope of the article is, ahem, large. Consider for example the current lead paragraph:
A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the deck (the load-bearing portion) is hung below suspension cables on vertical suspenders. While modern bridges of this type date from the early 19th century, earlier bridges without vertical suspenders (simple suspension bridges) date from the 7th Century in Central America.
A reader should infer from this the (false!) idea that a simple suspension bridge is not a suspension bridge. Pardon me, but I am thinking some contributors here are "too close to the subject" to see what is obvious to others. This article may need an {{NPOV}} tag in addition to to the cleanup tag. --Una Smith (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re Sarek's comments. Una Smith is absolutely right here - "suspension bridge" is an example of a taxonomic term (the handy word for which I've forgotten) where it's used simultaneously to mean a broad overall group (suspension bridges) and also one sub-group within this, this being the best-known of several sub-groups ("suspension bridges where the deck is supported from a pair of long catenaries"). Ignoring the question of naming for a moment, a comprehensive encyclopedia needs articles on both.
The difficulty arises because there's no obvious term for "suspension bridges where the deck is supported from a pair of long catenaries" and I don't believe "suspended-deck suspension bridges" is good enough. I'm not a bridge expert, but I checked my bridge refs last night (please, don't tell me that Britannica and Fox News(!) are unimpeachable sources for anything technical - I keep more reliable civil engineering reference books than those in the bathroom) and although the type of "suspension bridges where the deck is supported from a pair of long catenaries" is widely described, and described as a distinct form from "cable-stayed suspension bridges" et al., they're only named under the same generic "suspension bridges" name as their superclass. In a technical context, the concept is what matters and they have less need for precise naming than those writing encyclopedias.
The problem that has arisen here on wikipedia is that as the name is problematic, this has led to a chorus of editors claiming that the concept thus doesn't exist either. That's incorrect, albeit understandable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot disagree more with your first statement. The article needs to do both. The article has been and will be the MAIN article for suspension bridge. It must present the bridge that meets the current definition of that. The article is not so long that the only content can be the bridge that meets the current definition. There is plenty of room in this article to have a history section that shows (with wikilinks) that the bridge has developed from simple rope bridges, etc. AND to have a section on "other suspension bridge types" that briefly discusses sub-types like the self-anchored suspension bridge, etc. And yes, it should have a DAB hatnote at the top. These goals are not mutually exclusive. The DAB page should not be here as it does not give enough information on the bridge that meets the current definition of suspension bridge. When it comes to bridge basics, I really try to think like a fifth-grader. I have helped enough of them through the years in building their popsicle stick bridges to realize the value of the KISS principle. Another reason to make this article complete (and not to put the DAB here) is the large number of sites that will mirror this information. Not all mirrors will be wikified, and very few will pick up the hatnotes. Having a DAB located here (instead of Suspension bridge types) will confuse those users. So head on down to your local library. Look up suspension bridge in an encyclopedia IRL. This will give you an idea of what we should be writing. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion for a two paragraph lead (like before, begin with a hatnote to direct people to Suspension bridge types).
For a listing of historical and alternate types of suspension bridges, see Suspension bridge types.
A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the main supporting element is two (or more) suspension cables, anchored on each end, and has a deck (the surface for traffic) hung below on vertical suspenders. This type of bridge is cabable of spanning the greatest distances. It can be also built without requiring access from below, making it ideal for construction over deep gorges or rough seas. Suspension bridges like the Golden Gate and the Brooklyn Bridge are among the most recognizable and famous of any bridge in the world. Today, suspension bridges can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build.
The earliest types of suspension bridges were rope bridges followed by simple suspension bridges. These bridges were flexible and would move (or bounce) as people or animals moves across them. The modern suspension bridge dates from the early 19th century when when iron and steel became a reliable building material and bridge builders began to stiffen the deck to remove the flexibility. Simple suspension bridges are still built today along with variations like the self-anchored suspension bridge.
The statements in the lead can then be appropriately sourced in sections that might follow this outline:
History (including historic types)
Variants or "Alternate types" (with a note to send people to the main article on types, Suspension bridge types)
Comparison with other bridge types (cable-stay, etc.)
Cost comparison (why we don't build suspension bridges across highways), costs of a few recent bridges
Structural elements (I can work on a diagram of bridge parts, see one I did at Cantilever bridge)
Structural behavior (to include discussion on the need for stiffening and touch on the lack of sufficient stiffening as a cause for the Tacoma Narrow collapse)
Famous suspension bridge engineers (and their contribution to this type of bridge)
Famous bridges (to include a short table of the longest, I suggest five, with link to main article of longest suspension bridge spans)
Infamous bridges (or "Ill-famed bridges") as subheading to discuss bridges famous for their demise
I think that this format lead might provide the coverage of other types that is desired, and is "written in a way that makes readers want to know more" as sugested by the guide to better leads. It does not attempt to get "overly technical" right from the start. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not address the problem:
A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the main supporting element is two (or more) suspension cables, anchored on each end, and has a deck (the surface for traffic) hung below on vertical suspenders.
There are so many variations of each kind of bridge that this discussion could never end. If you will see my notes here, you will find that the Rio Colorado Bridge (Costa Rica) is decribed by one author as a "top-deck suspension bridge", called an inverted arch by another, and reported to have truss chords by another. Is it truss, arch or suspension? The devil is in the details, or more to an engineer's POV: it depends on how you are doing the calculations. Likely that the engineers did calculations specific to each of thes types in order to build that bridge.
I picked up on info in Simple_suspension_bridge#Comparison_to_other_types that states that a "simple suspension bridge" may refer to an "unstiffened suspension bridge". The info has a very good source that explains that a "simple suspension bridge" is unstiffened and discusses the efforts in the 1800 to develop stiffening. Then I found this book by David B. Steinman that has a chapter on unstiffened suspension bridges, followed by a chapter on stiffened suspension bridges. He explains that there are differences in the calulation methods for these two types. It is the flexibility that makes the difference in how to calculate the forces and deflections (and creates the catenary versus the parabola).
So it does not matter if the "deck" rests upon the suspension cables as in the Capilano Suspension Bridge or hangs below as in this image here, it is the flexibility of the bridge that makes them "simple" by these two references.
Another way to think of it: in a non-simple (standard) suspension bridge, the stiffening girder (or truss) spreads out the load to several vertical suspenders. This keeps the "curve" of the suspension cable from changing and helps keep the bridge from being bouncy. It was the stiffening that allowed trains to cross suspension bridges.
Engineers kept making the stiffening girders lighter and lighter until "BAM", the Tacoma Narrows disaster woke them up.
Once again we have an agreed concept, but are falling foul of unclear definitions. I see nothing in your refs about the Mayan bridge that describes it as a Simple_suspension_bridgein our local use of the term, merely descriptions of it as having towers, and being "a suspension bridge that is simply constructed". This isn't a surprising overlap in terminology. It doesn't even invalidate our use of Simple_suspension_bridge, nor does it argue that the Mayan bridge should be placed into that category, or that we should use the exact same terminology in our article (we should strongly avoid the term anywhere near our coverage of the Mayan bridge).
There are suspension bridges (many described nearby) that are Simple_suspension_bridges (having no towers). Do you dispute the existence of this as a distinct sub-group, worthy as an independent article? If you accept the concept, what would you suggest calling it? I would see it as a poor move to decide to pretend the concept doesn't exist, just because we can't agree what to call it! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bridges are a very technical topic. There have been papers and textbooks published on bridges for centuries. This means that there sould be ample sources of the highest standard of reliability. By WP:Verifiability, we must find and reference a source that defines each bridge term we use in WikiPedia. I am searching high and low for a source that defines a simple suspension bridge in the manner you describe. I have not been able to find one. I do not dispute the existence of such bridges, nor can I dispute that the term "simple suspension bridges" is used in your locale to describe them. I can only ask that you help me find an acceptable source to back up the information currently presented in Wikipedia. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, "If you accept the concept, what would you suggest calling it?" As the definition I am finding for "simple suspension bridge" is "unstiffened," then a suspension bridge "without towers" could fit within that definition, as long as it does not have either (1) a stiffening girder or truss or (2) stays to stiffen the bridge or (3) substantial pre-tensioning in the deck to make it a "stressed ribbon". - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines say that articles should be named using the most commonly used name. The point of this is very practical. We want people to find what they are looking for. My experience is that when people say "Suspension bridge" they almost always are referring to the bridges described on this page. The most common other usage for the term is when it is misused to refer to cable-stayed bridges. I don't believe that using "suspension bridge" to refer to bridges with decks suspended from cables is a misusage. This debate can be easily resolved by pointing to reliable sources that show that "suspension bridge" is a misuse of the term, or that show that the most commonly used term is something else. I don't believe that can be done, but prove us wrong. Minus that, there is no reason to call this article anything other than "Suspension bridge". -- ☑ SamuelWantman21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source for the proposed new name, there is an even stronger reason than the guideline primary topic to keep it here. That is the policy of verifiability. There is enough room in the article to present the bridge that meet the current definition of "suspension bridge", and also discuss the historic types and the present-day subtypes (with appropriate links to those articles). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain, but only have the best photos of important bridges or key features. Commons has too much to sort through. -- ☑ SamuelWantman21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several bridges I have been looking at during the course of recent discussion (like this one here) have a cable that comes up from the side and underneath. I think I found a name for these cables.
A Manual of Civil Engineering, Rankine (1873). The book gives a good definition on page 578 "In order to stiffen two suspension bridges in the Isle of Bourbon, the elder Brunel tied the platforms down to a set of inverted chains (called "counter chains") whose total cross section area is about one-third that of the main chains."
A patent that uses the term "counter cables, and shows them with an inverted catenary in a diagram.
Transitions in Engineering, By Tom Frank Peters. on page 139: "It is only in very recent twentieth century work that counter-cable braced tensile structures have once again appeared as economically interesting alternatives to heavily stiffened systems for bridges and for membrane structures."
You can also search google for both strings here and get a few other hits. I would think this is enough verifiability to call them "counter cables". - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The given source doesn't support the extensive claim, is vague and perhaps not an authoritative source. In particular, there's no distinction in the source between this type of bridge and the simple suspension bridges already mentioned in the lede. TEDickey (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why the source is vague is mentioned in the source itself: the bridges given as examples were no longer available for direct observation, having not lasted into modern times. The illustration likewise is problematic, for the same reason. TEDickey (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple suspension bridges don't have vertical posts and do have a catenary, not horizontal, deck. The illustration was made from direct observation in 1878. The bridge in the illustration survived into modern times and was reported standing by Tucci (A Lhasa e oltre) in 1948, with only the planks of the deck missing. Photographs were reportedly published by the Swedish explorer Sven Hedin in 1907. Eselquinoa (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modern suspension bridges and simple suspension bridges are both "suspension bridges". I'd like to know how anyone could justify saying otherwise. There are current examples of simple suspension bridges in the USA, in existing articles on this WP. - Denimadept (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Does a novel about a bridge accident really have any place on this page? What are your thoughts on deleting the entry from the 'infamous suspension bridges' section? P0150neDr1Ce asian08:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I think the header was the main source of what you might call WP:OR. If not, please explain how it's OR to list well known bridges which have collapsed, and are well documented here on WP. - Denimadept (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "see also" to suspended arch bridge from the siblings section in the infobox. Yes, the deck is suspended from the arch, but the structural mechincs of this bridge form are completely different from that of a suspension bridge.Meters (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the cat Croatian Inventions and the claim that the first modern suspension bridge is the work of Fausto Veranzio. We have an image of an earlier bridge which is clearly a "modern" suspension bridge in our gallery. I suspect this claim originated with a series of socks known to push Croatian invention claims and Fausto Veranzio. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123Meters (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the description to suspension bridge has been around for years..not a sock. Second of all, if you read the article simple suspension bridges it considers the Chakzam as a simple. Please educate yourself before making bold reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.79.110 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same person who was so disruptive, they had to make an edit filter to stop the repeated addition/removal of inventions by nationality categories. It's unfortunate that it is not possible to create an edit filter that will catch the more subtle Balkans-pushing like this or this. Sro23 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to discuss this with anyone has a real objection to my deletion, but one of the IPs who undid my edit has just been blocked for block evasion. I don't know why simple suspension bridge mentions the Chakzam Bridge. The drawing of this bridge used in Suspension bridge appears to show a modern type suspension bridge. In the diagram the deck is supported from the suspension chains with vertical supports but does not follow the chains' catenary curve, and the supporting chains run over towers. These are all characteristics of modern suspension bridges rather than simple suspension bridges. I am examining the cited source of the image to see what thet text says, but it's 800 or so pages and there is no page number given.
Note that the original claim that the modern suspension bridge was the invention of Fausto Veranzio was not properly sourced. The origin of the image used was sourced, but we would need to cite an independent source (not Veranzio) that this is evidence of ht efirst modern sauspension bridge. It's also not clear to me that the Veranzio suspension bridge was ever built. Meters (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image we are using is from page 313 of http://www.archive.org/details/lhasaanditsmyst00waddgoog . I've added the pg number to the source info for future reference. The sketch was made in 1878 while the bridge was still in use. By the time the source book was written (1905) the bridge was no longer in use: the towers and chains remained but the suspended deck was gone so all we have to go on is the sketch and the accompanying description. There are photos of the chains and towers, for example File:Old Chain-Bridge at Chaksam.jpg, but it's not possible to tell from these if the suspended deck followed the catenary curve or not. Meters (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - if the current article lacks wide ranging and relevant content then the solution is to add that content and not spawn off additional articles. The existing discrete bridge type articles should be linked from this article and should have summary text here. If there is a need to achieve balance by having a new and separate article for suspended deck suspension bridges, then that is a different issue. The current title is the logical search term. An article deficient in some aspects is not "insanity" it is simply incomplete . VelellaVelella Talk 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally what you write makes sense, but you fail to recognize that 99% of this article is only about 1 type of suspension bridge. The "simple suspension bridge" is mentioned in the lead merely to distinguish it from what this article is about. You essentially suggest rewriting an article that is almost entirely about a single type of suspension bridge, to an article that is about all types of suspension bridges. That doesn't make any sense. The logical solution is to move this article to a name that describes this specific suspension bridge, so we can have either a new article about all suspension bridges - or, if one's not yet written, a redirect to the Types of suspension bridge overview. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed "suspension bridge" is a common name - for all kinds of suspension bridges. Your Average Joe will point to the bridge described in this article, and will say: this is a suspension bridge. This article, however, discusses only 1 type of suspension bridge. If the content of Horror film would be at film, then too would "film" be the common name. But we need to be more specific, since that article describes the horror film genre. See also my comment above. The lead of this article even says "Like other suspension bridge types, this type often is constructed without falsework." to point to other bridges that have commonalities but are different from the one described in this article. This article is not about suspension bridges in general, it's about 1 type of suspension bridge. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If what the two editors who have commented on my move request is true, then the very first sentence of this article would already be a lie. "A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the deck (the load-bearing portion) is hung below suspension cables on vertical suspenders." If this article was truly about all types of suspension bridges, how can it possibly start with the claim that the deck is (always) hung below suspension cables? Read the article; look through it. It's very clearly only about 1 type of suspension bridge. It's incredibly misleading to then have this article be called simply "suspension bridge" even though all the other articles that describe other kinds of suspension bridges do have an additional word in front of them to distinguish them from each other - including from the one described in this article. Sure, if you want to write the one described in this article is "the most common" suspension bridge (if that's even true), go for it. But don't be so stubborn to keep calling this (just) "suspension bridge". A Horror film is a "film" but not just a film, it's a horror film. This article isn't about suspension bridges in general. The very first sentences make this very clear. Look through the article, look at all the pictures of bridges. If you don't want to move this article, it should be very, very thoroughly rewritten to mention all kinds of suspension bridges. And then, of course, at some point you'll have to describe the one this article is about, and then you'll have to come up with a name for it - right? And guess what, that's what editors had to to at Types of suspension bridge#Types, where it says: "Suspension bridge (more precisely, suspended-deck suspension bridge): the most familiar type." As soon as you actually list this type among other types, you will be forced to rename this one. Because the current name is too general. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the move, the article could start with "A Suspended-deck suspension bridge, commonly referred to as simply suspension bridge, is [...]". Similar to how Contemporary R&B starts with "Contemporary R&B (commonly referred to as simply R&B) is [...]". --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Types of suspension bridge: "Though technically all the types listed here are suspension bridges, when unqualified with adjectives the term commonly refers to a suspended-deck suspension bridge." Thus "suspension bridge" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this bridge type, and there is no need to be more precise than that common name. The solution here is to merge types of suspension bridge into this article, in the Variations section where there are already a few suspension bridge variants listed, and similar to how we do this for other broad-category bridge types like cable-stayed bridge and arch bridge. In fact, of the types listed in the navbar, suspension bridge is the only one which has a separate list of subtypes, even though for example truss bridge has a setindex list of thirty different types in the main article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cognitive dissonance between the title "suspension bridge" and the actual scope of the article is massive. This article is clearly just about the suspended-deck type; see the hatnote, the lead, the pictures, and everything else. And it has been since 2009. And again, YES, "suspension bridge" is the common name, but it is a "taxonomic term [...] where it's used simultaneously to mean a broad overall group (suspension bridges) and also one sub-group within this, this being the best-known of several sub-groups". Why can we not start the article with "A Suspended-deck suspension bridge, commonly referred to as simply suspension bridge, [...]"? All I'm reading is that you are parroting the "common name" statements that we've read over and over. Don't merge types of suspension bridge into this article. You'll destroy a perfectly good article that's just about the suspended-deck type. Can't you see everything here is just about 1 type of bridge? Did you even read the hatnote, lead, did you see the pictures, etc.? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article, beyond the lede? The History section starts with an introduction and overview of simple suspension bridges (with a hatnote that would be better as prose), leading into the development of chain- and wire-suspended bridges, followed by an incomplete and poorly-summarized structural analysis and awkward comparison with cable-stayed bridges. That section is then followed by Variations, which already includes the simple and underspanned suspension subtypes; the only one missing is the self-anchored type which is very much a subtype, and could and should be described here if this is to be a complete article. A description of the stressed ribbon type is also missing, but non-expert readers would probably not recognize it as a suspension bridge anyway. The reason that this article devotes so much coverage to the suspended-deck type is because it's by far the most familiar type to readers - nobody not already familiar with the subject matter sees the Golden Gate Bridge and says "wow, what a pretty suspended deck suspension bridge!". Our Golden Gate Bridge article introduces the subject as "a suspension bridge", and in fact the phrase "suspended deck" appears in that article exactly zero times. Ditto the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, the highest-ranked good article (by pageviews according to this list) on a suspension bridge (sadly the only featured article on a suspension bridge is Chelsea Bridge, which is the self-anchored subtype). We're writing a general purpose encyclopedia which presents general overviews of topics for a wide audience, not a technical guide for engineers where this kind of pedantic distinction would matter. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common name, and as user:Velella writes, the solution is to incorporate more material on other types of suspension bridges rather then to split this out. Meters (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yet again the same argument. Can you give an example of another article title where the common name is used simultaneously to mean a broad overall group and also one sub-group within this, this being the best-known of several sub-groups? I don't feel like anyone opposing the move is acknowledging the special situation we have in front of us. I don't even think WP:COMMONNAME tells us what to do in a situation such as this. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this edit, the IP who failed to get his way in the RM discussion above has instead had his way by messing up the lead. I don't think the lead was much good before, but this is not an improvement. Shall we just undo that? Or is someone willing to write a good lead? Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, this is intended as a discussion starter based around the section "notable collapses" being revised.
The notable collapses section on the page is as follows:
Tacoma Narrows Bridge, (USA), 853 m – 1940. The Tacoma Narrows bridge was vulnerable to structural vibration in sustained and moderately strong winds due to its plate-girder deck structure. Wind caused a phenomenon called aeroelastic fluttering that led to its collapse only months after completion. The collapse was captured on film. No human lives were lost in the collapse; several drivers escaped their cars on foot and reached the anchorages before the span dropped.''
There are a few reasons that a revision is needed, here are some from me:
1. The Tacoma Narrows list-off is far longer than the Silver Bridge
2. The Tacoma Narrows list-off goes into some details, whereas the Silver Bridge doesn't have any details except for the casualty figure (this could be solved by either lengthening the Silver Brdg. Section or truncating the Tacoma Section
3. "The no human lives were lost" statement makes it sound like something non-human died (which is absolutely true, a dog named Tubby did die in the collapse). Personally I believe it is justified to mention Tubby here due to the notoriety and perhaps slight absurdity of his death. This quote from WSDOT shows that:
"At first, Leonard Coatsworth became most widely heralded as the "Last Man on the Bridge." That may have been because newspapers across the country published the reporter's dramatic story of his flight off the doomed bridge and the loss of his car and dog Tubby."
(This comes from a numbered list entry which talks of the last person on the bridge."
There exists another mention by WSDOT too:
"Tubby" the dog fell into fame when Galloping Gertie collapsed on November 7, 1940. As the only victim of that great disaster, Tubby has earned a special place in the hearts of many."
4. The Tacoma, depending on personal interpretation, may be a bit too long for the section. Personally it seems a bit chunky and a bit to in-depth. This relates to points 1 & 2
This thread is the result of the OP's attempt to add unsourced information about the dog [7], which I undid with the summary "unsourced trivia, not needed even if sourced". I elaborated on this on my talk page when asked about it with And as I said, not needed even if sourced. Suspension bridge is an article about suspension bridges in general. We don't need minor trivia about a dog on one particular bridge. We link to Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) where that trivia is mentioned, and sourced.
As for the relative lengths of the two sections, there is nothing that says they need to be the same (even approximately) length. We could trim the list down to bare links, but it makes sense to have a short description of why each collapse is significant. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse is extremely well-known to the public because of the film of the collapse, and in the engineering world. The description of the failure mechanism is there because this was a previously unknown engineering failure mechanism, and the collapse led to significant changes in bridge designs. That's largely why the collapse is significant. The Silver Bridge collapse is notable both because of the number of fatalities and because it highlighted an inherent problem with that design, and a failure to adequately inspect older bridges. The description of the Silver Bridge should probably be expanded. Meters (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that we should add Broughton Suspension Bridge to the list of significant collapses. This was the first failure due to resonant loading from the people on the bridge and led to the "march out of step" rule for bridges. Meters (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The addition to the section had no citations because it seemed necessary to give a source for it. It feels awkward to myself to include citations in sections like that. Maybe that's my habitat of stub articles showing. Needless to say, the dog is well known. Allthecows (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well known? I don't think so. Documented, yes, but that is certainly not the same thing as well known. I doubt very much that there are many people in the world who know that a dog died in that bridge collapse, let alone know the dog's name. And whether it is sourced in the article, verifiable, or well known is not the issue. Once again "not needed even if sourced". If you don't care to attempt to address this issue then there is no point in continuing this. Meters (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care to attempt to address this issue then there is no point in continuing this.
Which issue are you referring to?
I'm not sure why we needed to bring up that the edit was 'unsourced' either. It's irrelevant to the situation at hand anyways. The dog died as a result of the collapse. He is a casualty and highlight of the event, along with the cars, the design flaws etc. Would the altering of the statement to say that "the only casualty in the collapse was a dog" suffice?
Allthecows (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "not needed even if sourced" do you not understand? Yes, the dog died. Yes we can source it, but we don't need it in this article. If you don't address the issue of why you think mention of this trivia about the dog is warranted then there is nothing to discuss.. This is not an article about that bridge or about that bridge collapse. It's an article about suspension bridges in general. There's too much detail in that list already, and we certainly don't need to add trivia about a dog. Meters (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as I 've already pointed out, we do mention the dog in the actual article about this bridge. There is no reason to mention the dog in this article. I suggest that you read WP:IDHTMeters (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I understand your point, but I disagree with it. It seems thatWP:IDHT mentions community consensus. So far it's 50/50 because there's two people on this, and I wouldn't call two people a community.
Allthecows (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that you disagree. Your problem is that you are not giving any valid reasons for disagreeing. Why' is mentioning this dog germane to this generic article about suspension bridges and to this list of notable failures? The dog's death has nothing to do with the importance of this bridge failure. Meters (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally anything can be valid to anybody. Take a gander at flat earthers, even with evidence they don't consider others' arguments valid. Something that's valid to me isn't going to always be valid to you or anyone.
The dog dying was a consequence of the collapse, but so was the design lessons learnt. However that's not mentioned. We could get into if the mentioning of no human life lost is even necessary. That opens the can of worms that a dog's notable and untimely death has the same value as a human's death in an untimely event. Tubby, given the fact that he is extremely well known in-relation to the disaster, I think that to be true. Besides, the dog's death should be of more notoriety and value than loss of cars.
Might I ask, were you aware that a dog died in the collapse before this discussion?
Alright, with that I've made a draft of a revised version to the TN §. Comments are welcome. I don't know how to fit in the lessons learnt.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge, (USA), 853 m – 1940. The bridge collapsed due to a major design flaw which caused the bridge to move uncontrollably in sustained winds. The event was documented on film. The only fatality of the event was a dog.Allthecows (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not only are you still mentioning the trivia about the dog but now you've made the technical description worse.
You made an addition. It was challenged. We're discussing it. We edit by consensus, and unless there is consensus the article stays in the status quo, which means the dog trivia will not go in. Maybe no other editors have seen this. Maybe other editors have seen this thread and don't care to comment. Maybe other editors have seen this thread and are not commenting because they agree that the dog should not be mentioned. It's not as if you've given us any supposed reason why the dog is a significant part of the bridge collapse's notability for anyone to argue against. As I said The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse is extremely well-known to the public because of the film of the collapse, and in the engineering world. The description of the failure mechanism is there because this was a previously unknown engineering failure mechanism, and the collapse led to significant changes in bridge designs. The fact that a dog died is irrelevant to the list of significant collapses. It does not matter that the "dog dying was a consequence of the collapse". I suggest that you drop this. Meters (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It's prudent to let you know you've been rude here.
I will not respond further out of my own determination, unless it's regarding a "WP:3" resolution. I'd advise that you not reply unless it's regarding WP3 because of that.
Allthecows (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any rudeness on my part. I've devoted quite a bit of time and effort to attempting to explain the problem to you, and what I am seeing is WP:IDHT on your part with no realistic explanation of why the dog should be mentioned in a list of notable suspension bridge collapses.
I didn't suggest that you refrain from posting at all. I simply suggested that you drop the attempt to mention the dog, and you have no right to suggest that I refrain from replying to this thread.
You are at liberty to ask for a third opinion if no-one else comments on this thread. In the meantime I have left a neutral request for input on this discussion at the Bridges and Tunnels WikiProject [8]Meters (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
