This is in reference to my changes posted to the subject article from IP 68.249.81.38.

I am a regular user of Wiki, but am not interested in creating an account. The IP is a public/corporate one.

The changes I posted to the subject article are valid, NOT vandalism, and should NOT be reverted. I am a licensed structural engineer, and certified FHWA bridge inspector. The correction is important to ensure the proper understanding of the geometry of the bridge. I will continue to post the change until it stops being reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.81.38 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. I suggest you look at who reverted it. It'd help if you'd learn to use the system before complaining about how it works. Also, people with actual IDs are taken more seriously up-front, in part because they have a "talk" page. If you want to start by working in a hole, that's your call. - Denimadept (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

From IP 68.249.81.38.:

It's understandable that people involved with internet messaging (wiki is nothing but a glorified message board) tend to acquire an insular mentality - spam is a big problem - and your attitude is a perfect example. It's irritating, however, to we in the professional community when laypersons such as yourself hold themselves up as expert in areas where they are obviously ignorant - but this is also typical of internet discourse. C'est la vie, I suppose - but that's why I'm pursuing this issue with a bit more zeal than is probably warranted.

In any event, it appears that the extent of incorrect syntax in the subject article was such that it was impossible to correct by the alteration I provided - I do not have, nor do I find referenced in the article, a graphic structural cross-section to work from, but the referral to structurae appears to have proven useful in clarifying your errors, at least to some extent. I did not previously look up the dimensions of the cross-section, but foolishly assumed that the writer of the article knew what a "stiffening truss" was.

It is apparent that the usage of the term "stiffening truss" has caused you and/or the original writer some confusion. I'll attempt, despite your snotty attitude, to educate you here:

The term "stiffening truss" w.r.t. suspension bridges is generally used ONLY in reference to composite members oriented VERTICALLY. It appeared in common bridge engineering use during the 1940's use after the Tacoma narrows failure, which occurred as a result of inadequate torsional siffness in the deck, which was built very SHALLOWLY to enhance its aesthetic appearance. To illustrate this to yourself, twist a strip of cardboard, then try to twist a cardboard box - the boxed section is much stiffer in torsion, obviously. That lack of torsional stiffness, combined with a wind loading that caused the deck to flutter at a frequency matching the harmonic value of the structure, caused the bridge to tear itself apart.

The transverse trussing under the deck can only enhance torsional stiffness of the superstructure insofar as torsional loads are transmitted to it via "boxing" of the superstructure section. As the superstructure width is of necessity closely related to the roadway width, transverse trussing is "free" as it were; and there is nothing in any way remarkable about the width of the superstructure being greater than the roadway - in fact this characteristic is typical of suspension bridges. It is less typical of cable-stayed structures, where the torsional stiffening box may very well be narrower than the roadway due to different connection details and advancements in analysis & design.

Historically, a large number of existing suspension bridges were retrofitted with VERTICAL torsional stiffening trusses after the Tacoma Narrows failure - Bronx-Whitestone is the most significant example. Early photos of that bridge show a significantly shallower superstructure than those taken after the retrofit; there were complaints that the added components detracted from the bridge's appearance. These same complaints were leveled against Steinman when he designed the Mackinac - aesthetically inclined persons (architects mostly) disliked the "heaviness" of the bridge's appearance. This, however, was 30 years after the Tacoma narrows design, 10 years after its failure, and 5 years after the necessary retrofitting of other "slender decked" suspension bridges, initially built during the 1930's. The Straits of Mackinac are subject to very high winds generating large torsional forces in the bridge superstructure, and Steinman did not compromise his engineering for aesthetics, as we see by the large depth of the superstructure (nearly as wide as the roadway!).

For more on the engineering history of large bridges, read Henry Petroski's work.

In summary, while the transverse composite member under the deck is technically involved in stiffening the bridge superstructure, mostly w.r.t. lateral loads, the term "stiffening truss" is incorrectly applied to it. The correct geometric description of that component should be "Width of superstructure", while the current description of the section depth is correct. The comment about relationship between the superstructure width and the roadway width should be removed, as it implies that this is something unique when it is not. I'll leave you to do your own research and make the necessary corrections, since you folks are pretty clearly operating on about a third grade level regarding your little sandbox here.

You're welcome. 68.249.81.38 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You assume a lot.

I've read almost everything Petroski has published in bound form. I'm quite aware of the cause of the collapse of the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge. And I'm not the person who reverted your change. When you're on the article's page, select the "History" tab to see who did what. Once my attention had been attracted to the issue by your complaint, I did some research and modified the article per the references I found.

I'm sorry that you found my text "snotty". I'm also sorry that you take certifications so seriously that you apparently don't accept that people can do this as a hobby and be aware of quite a bit. That's not to say I know as much as you, but I'm not completely ignorant either. - Denimadept (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might note that I removed the reference to the difference between the roadway width and the truss width back when I made my changes to the article. - Denimadept (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I know the bridge existed because the postcard exists (I like to monitor the Connecticut postcards for sale at eBay and download the good pictures, that's how I came across this.) I thought adding the picture added something small to the article, so I stuck it at the bottom, the least conspicuous place. My assumption is that it was the bridge that the current one replaced, but since I don't know, I can't say that in the article. I thought the picture was better in the article than not in it, but if you think differently, just take it out. Yes, it would be better to have more information showing how the picture I added connects with the subject of the article, and I'll take a look online today or tomorrow to see if I can find out something about that (a quick search before produced nothing). It seems very likely that it's the bridge that the present one replaced, but when you get right down to it, I don't know. Thanks for the note. Amg37 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated. It was released today. I wasn't paying attention when i was editing. Sorry.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm replacing bridge names (or any thing else) with hyphens in them (not roads like I-93 though — that way lies madness) with ones with dashes in them (as per MOS). On an entirely random ad hock kind of way - if I see 'em I do 'em. I usually waste my time tidying navboxes and hit some bridge ones with a totally random choice of hyphens/spaces/dashes to join place names so I tweaked some. TheAllSeeingEye (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your are listed in WikiProject Bridges and I wondered if you might want to weigh in on a requested move? There is a discussion here Talk:Suspension_bridge_types#Requested_move which results from a previous move. The discussion has major consequences on the content of the main article on suspension bridges? The root question: Is suspended deck bridge the proper name for a typical suspension bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you support me here, please? Debresser (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how. They keep calling anything based on fiction "in-universe" and "fan cruft". In what other sense might one write about fiction than "in-universe"? Is there some kind of "out-universe" that ***FICTION*** can be written as? I'm beginning to think we need a new Wiki for fiction. - Denimadept (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment on my comment on the recent deletion campaign. Usually, when I attempt to develop a coherent argument on an issue of substance, the silence is deafening.

Your point above about the problems of notability for articles related to fiction is well made. But I disagree with the idea that there should be a fiction wiki. WP is a general purpose encyclopedia and, as such, fiction should be part of it. Any other interpretation of WP policy is more or less equivalent to tag bombing, of which we have a considerable surplusage. Or perhaps, to misquote Henry II, first we kill all the wikilawyers....

And, regrettably, I note that Debresser was actually canvassing. I misunderstood something about that. Still glad he got me involved, though.

Best wishes. ww (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [1]: Why on earth would you think such a comment was at all helpful? In a 4 paragraph proposal, Philcha briefly mentioned "fancruft" - in quotes even - and you decide that that's a good enough reason to reply with sarcasm and an assumption of bad faith and to totally dismiss the proposal as worthless. Pilcha labeled nothing specific as fancruft, merely pointing it out as something that some people find to be a problem with articles. Normally I would just ignore comments like yours, but I'm curious to know: Do you really think your comment was helpful in any way? How is such a hostile reply to a simple proposal at all conducive to creating a collegial atmosphere? Did you even read the proposal, or did you just see "fancruft" and immediately dismiss it as the work of an evil deletionist? Mr.Z-man 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I suggest you read the follow ups. - Denimadept (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to actually read the proposal and discuss rationally. Mr.Z-man 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Its reference in popular culture,symbolizes the popularity of the dam Subash.chandran007 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An outstanding image. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a pop up message saying that something I had done to the Mackinac Bridge article was inappropriate. I rarely post on wikipedia and do not believe I have ever posted on the subject of the Mackinac Bridge. The problem is that this site is not conducive to an actual dialogue on any of this. Was that spam, something generated by a bot, or a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.12.151 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a stub. We have not much history and no numbers. - Denimadept (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually once there's enough text to make a subsection, I upgrade from "stub" to "start" class on the quality scale. This article also has a picture and references and external links. But it you want to re-stub it, go ahead. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid anything remotely like edit-warring. I prefer to discuss it. It's not worth changing, except to fix why it's start/stub. I'll have to get over there and take some pics, and figure out a source to do the research. I'm not seeing anything online worth using, so the Massachusetts State Transportation Library it is, if I can ever get there. I should go with my camera and lots of money for scanning stuff. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the images at Talk:Charlestown Bridge#Images taken June 16, 2009 - I hope this saves you a little time. I let Beland know they are there. Sswonk (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's primarily a list. If they want lots of details, they can read the article. The only time I've been putting details into the list is when I don't have enough to create an article. - Denimadept (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I trimmed the Harvard Bridge info, feel free to move anything else you think is too long to the appropriate article. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was mainly applying a U.S. Roads Project convention of having all shields in infoboxes/tables at 20px height. For rectangular 3-digit shields, that usually means a width of 25px. Some states however use square shields even for 3-digit routes (CT being one of them). In these cases, 20px would be what is called for. Admittedly it is just a convention in another project so it's not something that should necessarily be enforced elsewhere. --Polaron | Talk 13:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article Interchange (road) is under the scope of the bridges project, I am hoping you can provide a quick assessment on its talk page for class and importance. I am going to create a list of named interchanges article which may draw a little more traffic to the Interchange article resulting perhaps in an improvement. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the first thing to do is to get some references. The first ref that occurs to me is the Interstate highway standard in the US. I'm not sure where to find that. A road geek would know. I'll think about this. - Denimadept (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)