Talk:List of bridges

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Usefulness of this page[edit]

This list is not likely to ever be complete (or even nearly complete). Does anyone want to comment on its usefulness? I am thinking it should be nominated for deletion. Per the what WP is not policy, WP articles are not "mere collections of internal links" (WP:LINKFARM, item number 2). Since this list goes by the same criteria as the bridge categories (by geography and type) (each article must be about a bridge), then this article becomes a mere collection of internal links. It is therefore against policy.
I don't see the usefulness of this page. Thoughts on this? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Category:Bridges gives better lists of articles about bridges. --BIL (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a directory of bridge articles, not a set of links. As time passes, each bridge may well get an individual article. Whether any article could ever be "complete" is irrelevant.

What gets me about requests like this is their lack of vision. WP is an "encyclopedia" which is not bounded by the limits of a WP:PAPER publication. The implications of this are very broad. Part of the reason publications like Britannica have fallen out of favor is their lack of flexibility. WP does not have that problem; please don't try to impose such limits on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denimadept (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 November 2009

According to the guideline WP:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories". I agree with that guideline and consider this way too broad. That is why I posted this comment.
This criteria for inclusion in this list is simply being a bridge. The list would be enormous if it was nearly complete.
I would agree with information being broken out in smaller lists. List of bridges in Indonesia has more value to me than any list like this one that attempts to be overly broad.
Oh yeah, WP:NOTDIRECTORY either. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the usefulness of this page is acknowledged as an encyclopedic list of bridge articles "written or to be written" as described above, then why is this list linked as Notable bridges in the template {{Bridge footer}}. What make the list here notable? Is this article really a list of notable bridges? Does WP even have a list of "notable" bridges? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will clean up list[edit]

I'm going to clean up the list to remove any mention of bridges that don't currently have an existing article on Wikipedia. I'm doing this on the grounds of notability (assuming if it has an article then the bridge is somehow notable) thus making this list actually useful to users.Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. The discussion in the section above is not resolved. We may yet conclude that it is appropriate to have them listed. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly fried[edit]

I'm tempted to revert this article past the beginning of the month. It's totally screwed up. - Denimadept (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though there aren't more than a couple proper edits so it should be simple to keep those in. The IP user has been going about [List of bridge failures] As well with his gibberish on César Gaviria Trujillo Viaduct and Viaducto de Montabliz . IP seems consistent so a block would probably be in order. But I'm not versed enough in reporting such (Seems to have rather stringent rules) Raymond Holmoey (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bridges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216015243/http://www.city.shimada.shizuoka.jp/nousei/tochikairyou/houraibasi.jsp to http://www.city.shimada.shizuoka.jp/nousei/tochikairyou/houraibasi.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bloukrans Bridge-001.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Balawali Railway bridge-2012-10-28.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What types of bridges does this list include?[edit]

If this list includes various types of bridges (i.e., road, railroad, pedestrian, etc.), it should probably state so in the lead paragraph. Assuming it consisted of road bridges only, I added at least 3 road bridges to this list in the past, but an explanation in the lead would probably be helpful to other editors who might be unsure if the list is also for railroad, pedestrian and other types of bridges. Mercy11 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]