Talk:Sydney Harbour Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There's been massive deletions in this section.

The design is based on the Hagg Bank Bridge (aka Points Bridge or Wylam Railway Bridge). Which was built crossing the river Tyne in Northumberland at Wylam. The bridge was engineered by WG Laws and was started in 1874 and completed in 1876 making it the oldest through arch bridge in the world. It was designed as such to avoid the mine workings under the river. The Hell Gate Bridge was started in 1912 and considering it too was a railway bridge then it was most likely based on the designs for the Wylam Railway Bridge. Considering that Dorman Long and Co Ltd hail from Middlesbrough in North East England and they also built the Tyne Bridge which crosses the same river Tyne, then it is highly likely that the inspiration for the bridge comes from the Hagg Bank Bridge and Weirick's claims are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearance above[edit]

@AussieLegend: Hello AussieLegend


| clearance_above = (?)

. This was to encourage some one like you to find out for us how much height there is available on the road bridge for high vehicles. You, living in the area, are in a good position to find this info. Ditto for

| structure_gauge     = To be researched

. Peter Horn User talk 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite simply, this is not done. There are literally millions of infoboxes on millions of pages and when we don't know what to put in a particular field, it's just left blank. Putting a question mark next to everything that is unkown would just result in billions of pointless question marks, many in fields that are never going to be populated. If you really want to know the answer to what you're looking for, research it yourself, then complete the field. That is how information is added. In any case, because of the design of this bridge, the figure you are looking for ranges from an unknown distance to somewhere around 27.6 billion light years. The actual figure is probably not documented anywhere. --AussieLegend () 09:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That "unknown distance" is the room available from the deck to the closest structural member across the roadway. Anything greater than say 5 m (16 ft 4 78 in) could be called "no height restriction(s)". The actual figure, if any be needed, would be posted at both approaches of the bridge for he benefit of truck drivers who haul tall semi-trailers, especially if it happens to be less than say 4 m (13 ft 1 12 in). As for the structure gauge, I'll need to find the web site of the NSW Gov't Railways web site. Peter Horn User talk 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The instructions for {{infobox bridge}} are ambiguous at best. For clearance_above the instructions are simply "Clearance on top of the bridge, if proper". The top of the bridge is not the deck. In the case of this bridge, it's where the flags are. I have no idea what "if proper" is supposed to mean. --AussieLegend () 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You may, or may not, have noticed that I deliberately linked | clearance_above to structure gauge which is meant to imply what is space is available from the deck to any overhead obstruction that is low enough to be an issue. If there is (are) no overhead obstruction(s) then clearance_above could be marked as "not applicable". I'll change "Clearance on top of the bridge, if proper" accordingly. Peter Horn User talk 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If something is not applicable, we follow the same procedure that we follow for fields for which there is no data - we leave it blank. If we put "0" or "not applicable" in such fields, we'd just end up with unnecessarily bloated infoboxes. |towpath= is a valid field in the infobox but is not applicable. Should we put "not applicable" for it? As it is, I expanded the infobox and with valid data, it's already pushing images down the page. If we add fields that don't apply, images are going to end up in the wrong section. --AussieLegend () 23:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Images being pushed down into the wrong section is already happening in many articles with many different infoboxes. The solution to that might be a gallery after the overview. Other than that, in this case one could say "no vehicle height or load restriction height". Peter Horn User talk 00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: You might look at the end of Template talk:Infobox bridge#Rail data fields. Peter Horn User talk 01:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That images might be pushed down in other articles is not an excuse for not trying to avoid it here. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points and that there are no restrictions is not really important, so the field is best left empty, per convention. Galleries are discouraged, so that's not really a solution. --AussieLegend () 07:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)