Talk:Ponte Morandi

Viaduct vs bridge

I have tried to clear up confusion between the viaduct and the [cable-stayed] bridge; the latter being part of the former. I suspect some of our sources are also confusing the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've now undone two reverts of this, neither of which were consistent with the rest of the article. Obviously, I'm not going to keep doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This has again been reverted, with no discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just restored the bridge is part of the viaduct formulation (although present tense rather than past tense, that's a separate discussion if anyone wants to have it). I was very tempted to leave a note saying to discuss on the talk page before changing it, but as there isn't explicit consensus here (just your and now my comments without objection) I decided not to. If it is reverted again without discussion I probably will though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Images of the area

Hi, I have also left a message in the only working place for coordination of local users I am aware of, that is it:Discussioni_progetto:Liguria#Immagini_del_ponte_Morandi, asking for more specific images. It might not work, but I wanted to inform you in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please double check this historic image of 1966 where the bridge is under construction. It's not great but I am looking around for better historical images.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

this image of Saragat is better quality and looks like the same on another journal, so it should have been published at the time, before 1976, and should be possible to upload it on Commons. I'll look closer in the next days.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Split

Openlydialectic added the proposed split template at 7:10 this morning, suggesting to separate the collapse from the rest of the information about the bridge, but did not initiate any discussion about it here nor did they give any reasons for doing so in the edit summary or elsewhere (they haven't engaged on this page at all). Given the almost unanimous support above for merging (including after the split template was added), I suggest removing the template.

For the record, I am opposed to a split as the ongoing maintenance and history of issues is directly relevant to both the bridge and the collapse so would need to either be duplicated or inconvenience readers by requiring them to bounce between two separate articles - especially as there is not enough encyclopaedic prose to sustain two separate articles at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Thryduulf. Take away the collapse and you'll be left with a stub here. There needs to be enough material in both articles once a split has been done. We haven't reached that point yet. That is not to say that it won't happen, just not now. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. I also want to make a side note that if there ever is a split, the title should be something along the lines of "Ponte Morandi collapse" or "Collapse of Ponte Morandi". The [year], [location], [event type] naming scheme has to stop; it makes things hard to find if one doesn't have a wikilink to the article at hand. One should be able to type "Ponte Morandi" into search and have a potential article on its collapse be a second result. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/Support Just for the record, the standalone page about the collapse exists on four other language versions, which is, @PhilipTerryGraham:, really the only reason I chose the current name for the future article - beczuse that name (currently redirect) was interlinked with the other 4 langauge versions at the time of my posting.

Also, I went thru the List of bridge failures and there are multiple examples of standalone articles about bridge collapses even though all of them are either much smaller and far less informative than this article currently is or talk about accidents that resutled in far smaller nubmer of deaths. I mean the Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse freaking article about the collapse that had happened just a few months ago exists. There were 6 deaths in the accident Openlydialectic (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note that although Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse is titled for the collapse, it is about both the bridge and the collapse. Indeed, I've looked at every blue linked article in List of bridge failures for every event in 1950 and later, and in only one case is there an article specifically about the bridge failure separate from an article on the bridge (Cần Thơ Bridge, Collapse of Cần Thơ Bridge) and both those articles are individually longer than this one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Thryduulf. Take away the collapse and you'll be left with a stub here. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the leftover stub. A reason to oppose the split could be that the history of the bridge (type of bridge, upkeep) is intrisically related to its collapse, but there is enough material for two articles. As s comparison, if you skip the pictures, the overall length of the part before the paragraph "Collapse" is quite similar to Ponte Vecchio, which is a much older and historical structure. So being a stub is not the point here, IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Collapse of Ponte Morandi per @Openlydialectic:. The bridge is virtually insignificant outside of its collapse. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr. Guye: to clarify, you think there should be one article about both the bridge and its collapse, but the article should be titled for the latter rather than the former? Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Again, I am not interested if the article is split or not, I am quite neutral on the topic (maybe even supporting them to stay merged) but the reasons proposed should be as correct as possible. As I said, It can be easy checked that what is left would not be a stub, and in this case it is quite strange to state that the bridge per se is virtually insignificant. This was one of the most debated infrastructure in the 1960s, you don't invite the president of the Republic to the inauguration of an insignificant bridge. There was even a German version of the article since 2013, showing how this was not a specifically local topic.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The collapse of the bridge is akin to the death or injury of a biographical subject. Belongs in the main article. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• CommentI am from Commons and may not be too familiar with the policies of Wikipedia. I originally want to vote for support, as with quite a huge amount of deaths and casualties, and the one-year long state of emergency in Liguria, the collapse may fit some of the criteria stated in WP:GNG, but I am not sure if the situation is a case of WP:NNC. Can anybody explain this to me, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @廣九直通車: The question isn't whether the collapse is notable (it clearly is) but whether we should have one article about the bridge and a separate article about the collapse of the bridge, or one article covering both topics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I will tend to support the suggestion of creating an article of "Collapse of Ponte Morandi" with some information of Ponte Morandi in the article mentioned.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Design - SS_Esso_Maracaibo

The ship having collided with the Urbaneta Bridge is given as the USS Narraguagas (AOG-32), wich is apparently not the right one (see discussion there: Talk:USS_Narraguagas_(AOG-32)). The right ship should be SS_Esso_Maracaibo, would someone please check and correct the link. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin