Talk:Types of suspension bridges

Disambiguation
This disambiguation page was recently created. I'm not convinced it was a good idea. Please see discussion at Talk:Suspended-deck suspension bridge -- Samuel Wantman 19:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have changed it to a set index article (see SIA). --Una Smith (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
to, move over redirect. Until recently was an article about one type of suspension bridge, the suspended-deck suspension bridge. Now that is a redirect to,  can be moved to. --Una Smith (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Suspended-deck suspension bridge to form a single Suspension bridge article. Most people looking for Suspension bridge will want to know about the most common form, i.e. those with suspended-decks, but they may also want to know a bit about the other types as well. There is already a Variations section so these types could be moved in there. --Salix (talk): 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has existed since 2005. When it was created, the Suspension bridge article was moved to Suspended-deck suspension bridge, but then moved back to Suspension bridge five hours later, where it has stayed, until very recently, and where it will likely soon be returned. I see no reason for not keeping this article, but it certainly is not the primary topic for "suspension bridge". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I feel it's better to be correct. It only takes one more click to get to the page that someone may have meant to go to. But yes, there are more types of suspension bridges than just the suspended-deck. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 00:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Why should one type of suspension bridge monopolize the name of the class? That's like arguing that Bridge should be about beam bridges and never mind all the other types, let's just move them to Bridge types.  The strongest argument against the 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, make Suspension bridge an overview article about suspension bridges, all types, not about just one type of suspension bridge.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose any attempt to move suspension bridge articles to different locations than they were last month until discussion on all of them is resolved. Also, note that the above !vote is the Nominator, so this could be considered a second !vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator is entitled to vote just like anyone else. Sometimes the nominator is opposed to the move.  The number of votes is far less important than the rationales given for those votes.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would require moving suspension bridge, where it has been for almost all of seven years now. Not a good idea. When people type in "suspension bridge", they are not looking for this article, they are looking at the main suspension bridge article, which needs to be moved back to suspension bridge. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nearly all users will be looking for a deck suspended from catenary cables or chains (awkwardly termed a &quot;suspended-deck suspension bridge&quot;) because nearly all suspension bridges are of this type. The main suspension bridge article can and should state that the &quot;typical&quot; suspension bridge might be considered a popular abbreviation of the full technical description &quot;suspended-deck suspension bridge&quot; and offer a link to a list of other, far less common, . In this case the popular term for the most common type, while not an exclusive technical descriptor, is so prevalent as to merit being the name of the article. See ¢Spender1983's request below for a reliable secondary source using the term &quot;suspended-deck suspension bridge.&quot; I'm not aware of one.Martindelaware (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Before a decision is made, can someone determine the best target for "suspension bridge" by answering the question, "When a reader enters a word in the Wikipedia search box and clicks 'Go,' which article does he expect to see?" (former wording at WP:DAB). If a reader types "suspension bridge," does he expect to see an article on suspended deck bridges or a list of suspension bridge types? —   AjaxSmack   16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by the incoming links, the former content of the pages, and the contents of the commons category "suspension bridges", the reader expects to find something about suspension bridges. Some of the content of Suspended deck bridge actually pertains to suspension bridges in general;  once  is moved (for the sake of its edit history), I will expand it.  Perhaps it will not remain a set index article.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most users will seek to receive information about a bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Akashi-Kaikyō Bridge when they enter "suspension bridge". This is by far the most common type of suspension bridge built. The top of the article should have a link to Suspension bridge types and the lead should indicate that the article focuses on Suspended-deck suspension bridges. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ¢Spender1983, how do you judge what most users will seek? --Una Smith (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the PBS programs Nova and Zoom? They clearly show the suspended-deck version when they speak about a suspension bridge. How about a Japanese contractor that builds them, where he shows here the suspended-deck version of a suspension bridge and calls it a "typical" suspension bridge? How about this page for school techers here? How about the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica which only presented the suspended-deck verion here? These are all reliable sources which equate Suspension bridge to be the suspended-deck version of this type. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspended deck bridge is currently inaccurate. The article (the old suspension bridge article) needs to move back to Suspension bridge. While the most common type of suspension bridge is a suspended-deck suspension bridge, this article implies that all suspended-deck bridges are suspension bridges. That is absolutely not the case. The suspended-deck arch bridge is a normal form of arch bridge. (See the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) for examples of other types of suspended-deck bridges. If anything, suspended deck bridge should disambiguate to these two types of bridges. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ¢Spender1983, do you propose we move the article now at Suspended deck bridge to Suspended-deck suspension bridge, and leave a dab page behind? --Una Smith (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, the article now at Suspended deck bridge formerly was at Suspended-deck suspension bridge but someone unilaterally moved it to Suspension bridge and moved the dab page that was there to Suspension bridge types (see Talk:Suspended deck bridge). I would be happy to see the article about suspended-deck suspension bridge moved back to Suspended-deck suspension bridge.  And I still would like to move the article now at Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge and expand it into a proper article. --Una Smith (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the move from three years ago, as seen here? If so, I wholeheartedly agree with that move. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is the Sydney Harbour Bridge a suspended deck bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that question relevant to this requested move? --Una Smith (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This question is extremely relevant because the content of the Suspension bridge article was moved with out reaching any concensus that people call them suspended deck bridges. (The agreement of one other user for an article as old as this one does mot make for concensus.) If the content of that article is incorrect in that location and needs to move back, then this move cannot happen.
 * Do I need to open a second requested move (Suspended deck bridge back to Suspension Bridge) to make this question any more relevant to you?
 * I challenge you to find a reliable reference that says the Golden Gate Bridge or any other suspension bridge is called a suspended deck bridge, by either the public or the engineering community. Without any references for this naming convention, the article needs to be moved back. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ¢Spender1983 that the article now at Suspended deck bridge should be moved to Suspended-deck suspension bridge. However, this requested move concerns moving Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you do not agree with me. My input (emphasis added) is to move the article currently at Suspended deck bridge back to Suspension bridge. You are trying to subvert a discussion in a single location by opening a the requested move at Talk:Suspended_deck_bridge - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it, I think... ¢Spender1983 is invoking the primary topic argument, ie that one type of suspension bridge is so much more important than all other types that it should occupy the page name Suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there a single reliable, secondary source that calls the Golden Gate Bridge or any other suspension bridge a suspended-deck suspension bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Structural Steel Designer's Handbook calls the "typical" suspension bridge a "pure suspension bridge"; the section heading refers to a classification but the rest of the section is restricted content. Does anyone have this book? Else, shall we leave this open until I can get the book on loan? --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on hybrid types - a word of caution
It is important that any information on hybrid types be very well sourced. For instance, the sole reference given so far to discuss hybrid types (Bridge Engineering by Troyano) describes the Rio Colorado Bridge (Costa Rica) designed by T.Y. Lin as a bridge with "underneath, prestressed concrete main cables." The implication of the discussion is that the author considers it a suspension bridge with a "top-deck," yet he does not say so directly. On the other hand, the NY Times (here) describes the same bridge as an "inverted arch bridge." This shows that a bridge of unique design may be attributed to different classifications by different individuals. This makes sourcing the classification even more important, ande maybe even requires locating multiple sources. (A picture of this bridge can be found here. Let the flash load and click on the first project in the list.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is another source on the Rio Colorado Bridge (Costa Rica). This article (here) gives a good picture of it under construction. I haven't yet found any construction details of the bridge, but this is an an article from the Prestressed Concrete Institute. It calls the lower member a "chord", not a suspension cable. This implies a concrete "truss". I would think that the lower chord (or suspension member, or whatever you call it) would have been "post-tensioned" (tensioned after concrete was placed) to prevent cracking. This is a complex structure and will never fit neatly into one bridge category. Listing it as a "hybrid" suspension bridge will take a lot of caveats. If enough information could be found, it would make for an interesting article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on Hybrid Types - Question about Obere Argen Bridge
The source quoted for describing the bridge does not fully support presenting that bridge as a suspension bridge. The source says that the bridge "may be considered of the suspension type with intermediate deck … although, in fact, it is on the borderline between suspension and cable-stayed bridges." This uncertainy in the tone of the cource is not properly carried into the article. Also, Structurae classifies the bridge as cable-stay here. Is there another source for this bridge that gives it a suspension classification? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Add ropeway as a type of suspension bridge?
I found these two sources that identify another type of suspension bridge. This type of bridge is still in use today. I am just not sure of what name should be used. The first reference uses ropeway and that article could certainly be modified to account for this type of bridge. It needs to be distguished from aerial tramway which is used more to transport people either "up a mountain" or "along some distance" (that they could otherwise walk) versus "crossing" a river or valley. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trekking in Ecuador] (Kunstaetter, 2002) describes a motorized version over the Pastaza River.
 * Youtube has videos of the same crossing.
 * There was one depicted in the move Proof of Life of the inclined-rope, cradle variety. The kidnap victim is transported across a valley in a one-man "cradle" (Bosun's chair).

Request for editor assistance
FYI I just asked for some editor assistance regarding (1) the lead and (2) the resolution of the "suspended deck bridge" deletion issue. It can be found at Editor_assistance/Requests. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid types (2)
The bridges of the judge James Finley (engineer) had the center part of the suspension chains pass just below the bridge deck and carry it directly, but apart from that, the chains had the usual hangers. I would not call them a hybrid type and, to my knowledge, this type has not been repeated afterwards. The viaduct over the river Oberargen near Wangen, Germany is the de:Talbrücke Obere Argen on the Federal Motorway Bundesautobahn 96. It is definetely not a suspension bridge of any kind, but a cable-stayed bridge with a small pylon, where some of the cables on one side are continued under the bridge as an underspan. The Akashi Kaikyō Bridge is not a hybrid type. The idea of stiffening the the bridge deck by a truss girder structure has been used many times before. Thus, the section Hybrid types should be deleted entirely. --AHert (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)