Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 6

A trivia section??

In an article like this, its kinda sadddening. I can't think of a better name for the section, or where to move it, but I'm pretty sure someone activly contributing can do something about it. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 05:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A chronological organization has been restored, so what was moved into a trivia section after the gallery now appears earlier in the article. Kablammo 09:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we need a VERY RELEVANT, though not encyclopedic section: to wit-- on the day before and the day after this bridge collapse, 110 people DIED on US roadways--none are known to be related to bridge collapses; truck traffic has increased dramatically since this bridge was built, and individual truck gross weights are up as well; railroad mileage (to carry heavy bulk loads) has been reduced dramatically in the last forty years; SUVs are the most hazardous vehicle, by category; and despite the fact that we have the lowest driver standards and lack universal vehicle safety checks--we have the safest roads in the world--as measured by deaths per million miles. 207.178.98.52 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The day before may be more relevant, in case the 110 people died due to being distracted by the bridge collapse story. How many people died due to (long list of things related to wheels and steel)? The Interstate system was designed to carry tanks, so how do truck weights compare? Did engineers review the weight capacity of this bridge over 40 years? SUV's are safer if you're in them when a smaller car hits you. I've seen drivers in other countries and wonder how "driver standards" was measured. (SEWilco 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

"Trivia" sections are allowed because they collect facts which provide clues at material which might be woven into the article. Relevant information can be added, and everyone will consider whether it seems relevant enough to accumulate. Sometimes relevant or irrelevant information can not we identified until enough has accumulated. It will be interesting to see how much information a bridge which until recently had a stub article can accumulate. (SEWilco 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Investigation and cause (reprise)

For prior discussion of this topic, see Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge/Archive_1#.22Cause.22_section.

Recent additions to this article have added a discussion of "possible contributing factors" to the investigation section. I have toned it down rather than eliminate it, but perhaps the paragraph should go. Media have speculated on causes ranging from corrosion from bird guano and the de-icing system, geological causes, poor maintenance, and others. Those speculations should not be added as possible contributing factors. Straw men are being raised up only to be knocked down; it is now reported that the NTSB is no longer looking at the south end of the bridge (discussed yesterday as the origin of the failure) but now is looking to the north. Who knows what it will be tomorrow.

The point? Allow the investigation to take its course, and do not add every theory as it is put forth, even if reported in the media. Those interested in speculation can go the media and the blogs. We should write an encyclopedia. Kablammo 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I further rm'd the speculations of politicians and newsreaders as unhelpful in a section titled "investigation." Gwen Gale 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has readded some of the material. I invited the editor to discuss it here.

Badsongninja points out some of the problems with the material above:

Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge#Collapse_source_material

I continue to believe the speculation should be removed. Kablammo 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Causes section has been toned down and now represents the opinions of the best experts in the field, two of which I saw myself on broadcast news, and have been cited for reference. Readers need to know of the country's decaying infrastructure that there are a finite list of possible contributing causes, and to be looking for official investigators' answering them, e.g., that steel deforms before it breaks and therefore lends evidence to theses disasters. (The finite list of causes may never be elaborated by "bird guano" as humorously suggest by an editor, because that is NOT a possible cause of collapse.) However, the listing in a paragraph of those that are seems relevant.  uriel8  (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the north piers were nearly toppled is false; a review of the photos in the article show this. Start there and look at what is listed as a possible cause that was investigated; most are as remote a possibility for cause of collapse as bird guano. The causes that were/are under investigation should be based on fact with a source citable. Badsongninja 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually corrosion from bird guano was noted in the inspection reports and recommendations were made to mitigate it. But the point is this: At an early stage of investigation the NTSB will consider all possibilities. To say that something is a "possible cause" therefore is to say nothing-- if it passes the straight face test (and even if it doesn't, such as guano) it will be considered. I agree that the section has been toned down still represents speculation, not fact. Kablammo 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the section represent speculations, it is relevant to the article, and therefore should stay. Chris! _{my talk} 20:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The cited news article came out the day after the accident. It is journalism, not analysis. The north pier and pylons are still standing; the state is in a drought and the river water level was low despite one recent storm. (And when did I35W flood?) Yet Wikipedia we will state or suggest otherwise. Anyone want to add the guano and earthquake theories? (That too has been suggested.)

If we are going to report every theory in the media, even those of experts, this will be a very long section. I agree that the language has been toned down. But it still refers to "possible causes". (Says who?) It also states as factual matters which have not been shown to be true. If someone wants to add announced areas of official investigation, that is one thing, but uninformed speculation has no place here. Kablammo 21:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If consensus here decided to delete entire section until the official result is announced, I am not going to stand in the way of that. But you need to remember, the official investigation result might also represents speculations. Chris! _{my talk} 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps mention of "areas of investigation" or "areas of focus" would be a reasonable compromise, when properly sourced. And we could mention causes ruled out (at least on a preliminary basis), which now include terrorism and shifting of the south part of the bridge, which NTSB now says was an effect, not a cause. Kablammo 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this suggestion balances information with accuracy very well. There is not a need to delete the section, but the article should educate, not misdirect or misinform the reader. If truly a topic of investigation, it should be included. A reporter's idea of what might be the cause should be excluded in my opinion. I heard that one reporter stated that because the sufficiency rating of the bridge was 50, that there was a 50% chance that the bridge would collapse! We all have our own uneducated opinions, with very little exposure to the evidence, and have to be careful not to support conjecture that agrees with these opinions. My opinion, for the record is 1) the bridge was struck prior to the collapse by a vehicle travelling on the service road (<17' clearance here), and/or 2) a connection was removed inadvertantly or accidently during the deck repairs. It would be a disservice to list these as potential causes due to my armchair theories. The key is to have a source citing a statement by an expert (e.g. structural engineer) or their spokesperson that has seen much of the evidence firsthand. Badsongninja 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"The D.O.T. has established vehicle limits of: 102 inches wide, 13.5 feet in height, and 80,000 gross weight."[1] (SEWilco 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

If the official investigation result "also represents speculation" then we'll report the speculation from that source. If that happens to be uninformed speculation we should soon thereafter have material from other sources. (SEWilco 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

The "obvious facts" could be mentioned: video shows south end falling first, and south end landed more to the side than the north end. State that investigation is ongoing asof 2007. Mention the NTSB or other topics about transportation investigations. (SEWilco 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

On August 4 a Twin Cities TV channel posted an interview with an expert. The station took ths expert on a chopper ride over the site. He stated the collapse started at the south end.[2] In the meantime, or very soon there after, the NTSB chair ruled out the south end as the origin, stating the collapse there was an effect and not a cause.[3] (posted August 5). The failure did not start there, according to him. Kablammo 09:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we state that the offset location is due to the cause of the collapse, but we can state the south end's location and orientation in the river because that's where it is. Then state that investigation is under way, and tag that statement with a temporal marker because it will have to be updated. (SEWilco 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Although I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying, we may not be disagreeing. I would not fight a straightforward factual description of the investigation as it progresses (e.g., NYTimes article today on NTSB questioning of contractor PCI's workers on amount and weight of contruction equipment and materials on bridge.) I would however oppose drawing any conclusion from that (e,g, stating that weight of construction materials on bridge is a "possible cause"; the NTSB has not said that). We should keep our article to just the facts and avoid making or reporting speculation-- even speculation by uniformed experts. Personally, I think we should go very slow, to make sure we are not inserting stuff that will embarrass Wikipedia after we have all moved on to other matters. The media do a good enough job of that;[4] we don't have to emulate them. Kablammo 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have to remember the analysis will be reported when it appears, and a new bridge will be built at this location (obviously with a different design because the 1960s design has been called obsolete). We'll see whether the report or bridge appear first. (SEWilco 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

I tend to agree about being very wary of including any public speculation as to the causes (or even the sequence of collapse) by any police officials, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, columnists and so on. Some sampled commentary by civil engineers is more than ok with me as an editor but beyond this, I'd wait for published reports based on thorough research. I also agree that it's ok to report where stuff was found after the collapse, even where it was before the collapse if this can be documented, but any attempt to describe how something got from A to Z is a dodgy opportunity for misinterpretation, fuzzy assumptions and inadvertant speculation. Gwen Gale 09:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage

Interesting survey of national media coverage: [5]. Kablammo 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it not mentioned that FOX repetedly speculated terrorist action even though it was emediatly ruled out? John Doe or Jane Doe 16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Source? -Anon

BBC

I appreciate that this is an American article, but is "The British Broadcasting Corporation was also present and provided one half hour of continuous, uninterrupted worldwide coverage at the end of the day of the collapse." calling it the British Broadcasting Corporation really necessary? Isn't it predominantly known as the BBC in the US as well? We don't talk about the Cable News Network afterall Nil Einne 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right; while it's not often called "the Beeb" here, as I've heard some Brits call it, it's generally referred to as the BBC. I'd fix it, but someone beat me to it. Rdfox 76 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

Lead

The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article. Currently, it is not. It needs to be expanded. Typically, including at least one sentence for each section in the article.

Design and construction

"The three main spans were of deck truss construction while all but two of the approach spans were steel multi-girder construction with the remaining two approach spans being concrete slab construction." - Run-on sentence needs to be reworded.

(Inserted comments):

The article states that it is a cantilever design. It looks like a cantilever design -- it was a single truss design. However the photograph:[6] clearly shows a support pier at the North end of the bridge. I don't know the answer here, but if it was a single truss with 4 supports (and it appears that it was), this is a really bad design that would contribute to fatigue caused by thermal stress. --Tyrerj 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The main truss was a cantilever; the weight of the center spans was balanced by the side main spans, and the force was exerted downward to the two main piers, not outward to abutments. Kablammo 13:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thermal loads do not cause fatigue cracking in bridges as the amount of cycles is too low. 213.49.231.26 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) ben.cools

Structural deficiencies

Ref 37 does not have the story titled in the citation nor does it make any mention of the Governor's statements.

"No significant structural problems were found" is what the source says. To state that the governor said something "to the effect that" is entirely unencyclopedic.

Disaster response

The first paragraph in this section has 5 references clumped at the end. They need to be placed after the sentence for which they are the reference.

The last sentence in the paragraph, "Governor Tim Pawlenty declared a state of emergency." should state when he made this declaration. I also suggestion combining this sentence with the one sentence paragraph that follows.

Images

Consider staggering images.

References

The titles cited need to be the titles of the references. Not your own summary title of the article. Currently, it appears that almost all news references have been retitled during citation.

I recommend the use of citation templates to assist with consistency. They will take care of all the formatting for you. Otherwise, the format that should be used is as follows: Last name, First name (date of publication). "Title, linked to URL when available". Work, page(s). Retrieved on date. Note that the title is in quotation marks and the work (or publisher) is italicized. When page numbers are not applicable, there should be a period after the work rather than a comma. Dates also need to be wikified in references for user preferences. Both publication and retrieval dates. All available information should be included.

I've noticed that many of the quotes are not not in the references cited for them.

Conclusion

I stopped my review in the middle of the Aftermath section. The discrepancies with the references alone is enough to disqualify the article from GA. Readers actually do check the references given for various statements. If they don't match what is being claimed in the article, that does not make for a reliable encyclopedia. This is a very big issue that needs to be corrected ASAP.

Read WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:WIAGA before renominating at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Responsive Comments

• The lead paragraph does need work. It is however hard to create a lead on a frequently-edited article on a fast-moving story. An overly detailed lead can conflict with article content, as when casualty figures have been updated in the article but left alone in the lead. It points out the advisability of not being too detailed on current matters. Stable material however can and should be cited, but we should not slavishly follow a rule of one sentence per section.
• The article was probably submitted for GA prematurely, given the fast pace of change.
• References clearly need to follow the sentence or clause for which it offers support, not grouped at the end of frequently-edited paragraphs.
• Citation templates are useful but will not solve the titling problemn. The references were not retitled by the editors, but by the publishers. Some news channels have a "top story" on the subject which maintains the same url even thought its title and content changes daily and even during the course of a day. (wcco.com, for example has an article [7], which was retitled several times from its first posting after the collapse to its current August 4 version.) Yet it is hard to avoid the use of these free sources which are content originators rather than republishers, and often have the most recent and even exclusive content, nor would a citing editor know that the title would change after the cite was entered.

Kablammo 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Given the fast pace of change, the article was submitted for GA prematurely. I say we wait until the article settle before doing anything to it. Chris! _{my talk} 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead can still summarize the article. The unfortunate death toll and new developments can be updated accordingly, but all the set history can be summarized. As far as the recommendation for cite templates, that was not regarding the titles changing. It was to help with the formatting. Titles should be in quotation marks, publisher should be italicized. Information should be in a particular order. Citation templates allow you to enter all the raw information in no particular order and it takes care of everything for you.

It is possible for a current event article to achieve GA, but it takes extra work. It will be easy once everything is figured out with the disaster. Good luck. Lara♥Love 03:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Twins game

I copied much of the content about the Twins game to 2007 Minnesota Twins season. Perhaps the sub-section on the bridge article can be shortened and merged with the sub-section on effect on traffic. A seealso to the Twins season could be included. Canuckle 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the content about the Twins game is not related to the section on traffic. I say we keep it for now until we figure out what to do with it. Chris! _{my talk} 01:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Twins game is related to traffic in that they didn't want more traffic on the evening of the collapse. The other details I believe are more relevant to the Twins than they are to the bridge and can/should have the majority of its coverage in the Twins season article. Canuckle 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the section, but it is probably similar to what is in the Wikinews article. So those details are not far away. (SEWilco 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

You likely didn't see the section because the article 2007 Minnesota Twins season, in my opinion, is poor. I stuck it under the Miscellaneous section which is way below the fold. Canuckle 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridges merged

There will be a new bridge shortly, and references (such as upstream/downstream bridges) were starting to fracture. I merged the Replacement Bridge article in as a prickly stub section. (SEWilco 04:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

I am going to undo your deletion and redirect of the article on the new bridge. This article is about the bridge built in 1967, and primarily about its collapse. The other article will become a robust article about the design, construction and eventually use of the new bridge. I have no problem with the nav boxes linking to here with a (collapsed) note, but there will be plenty of material for a second article. The WP way to do what you want to do is to initiate a merge discussion.--Appraiser 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The new bridge is also "I-35W Mississippi River bridge". There is no need to fork the topic, and the creation of the new bridge seems to be quite entangled with the issues around the old bridge. (SEWilco 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Changes of this nature should be discussed before being implemented, with proper notification of the proposed merge on both changes, discussion at one location, and time for comments before implementation of changes. It would also be helpful if people would not treat the discussion as a vote, but keep open minds on the issue and work to a solution. So here, I think the merger should be reverted and two articles should be kept for the time being; that the "proposed merge" template be put on both articles with reference to one of the talk pages (I suggest the replacement bridge article talk page, as it is less busy), and that the discussion continue there for a few days. I have not formed an opinion on whether the article should be merged or not; I can see arguments on both sides. Kablammo 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they should have the same article. The new bridge is a different bridge, and so it should have a different article. Two things having the same name (or even the same location) are not a sufficient condition to necessitate that they share an article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "I-35W Mississippi River Bridge (former)" or something to that effect, but different bridges should have different articles. Etphonehome 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. There are good arguments on both sides. And it may be that there is no one right or wrong answer. But let's follow procedures in making the decision (and I do not suggest you are not following procedures). Kablammo 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I think a discussion of this issue is warranted before we rush into article merges willy-nilly. Etphonehome 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a discussion before rushing into article forking willy-nilly? Is there enough material to require another article? (SEWilco 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

I mentioned on this talk page last week my intention to create an article about the replacement bridge. At that time I expected it wouldn't happen this soon, but the planning and funding for the bridge has already begun. Furthermore, this article was a nominee for GA, and the future bridge information is changing daily; I didn't want to burden this article about the old bridge with all the material related to the new one. I have proposed a merge and plan to participate in the discussion on the other article's talk page. You are welcome to state your opinions there.--Appraiser 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here:

Main page: Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge

Per Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger please discuss changes before executing the merger. The proposal is disputed and should be discussed. While there now is content common to both pages, it will do no harm while we discuss the matter. As this page has many sections please discuss the proposal further at the talk page for the replacement bridge. Thank you. Kablammo 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, 36K is considered the tops for article size. This article is 50K. The new bridge will doubtless have a real name, vs. a descriptive number for the now historical bridge. If necessary, it will be titled New I35W Mississippi River Bridge. --Ace Telephone 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DOT construction web site

People watching the construction progress may want to monitor the MN DOT's web page for the design/build project. A link does exist on the main page within the References. (SEWilco 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Stub lead

It is probably correct to have a stubby two-sentence lead on this bridge. That encourages section edits and helps reduce edit conflicts due to full-article edits.--76.220.203.39 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What happen to the lead? It is too short. Chris! _{my talk} 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. WP:LEAD says it should be longer: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Canuckle 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest a lead as before, with additions regarding history and design, but non-specific numbers on casualties (as that changes) and no specifics on causes until cause is determined. That should be more stable. Kablammo 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Traffic volumes

Yesterday I made a correction to update the traffic volume mentions to MnDOT's latest: 2006 volumes, and also to remove the traffic volume reference listed from the URS report, which in reality was a traffic count from a single day in September and not reflective of overall traffic. This morning, I noticed my corrections were undone, and could not locate a reason why. Any particular reason why? Ajfroggie 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; you'll have to check the edit history. Perhaps it occurred in the merge. I believe the URS reference was to a week in September, not a day (I will check that later). It was inserted in the footnote text only to show that weekday volumes are higher. Kablammo 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Present Tense

The "Location" section of the article uses present tense verbs to describe the bridge. Since the bridge no longer "connects the Minneapolis neighborhoods of Downtown East and Marcy-Holmes" or "bounds the 'Mississippi Mile' riverfront parkland," for example, shouldn't that section be written in past tense? This seems to make sense, especially since there seems to be a new article about the planned replacement bridge and so this article deals primarily with the old bridge. I'm still a bit new at Wikipedia, so I don't want to just go ahead and change it and risk an edit war before I get some input on this. Etphonehome 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Go ahead and make the changes if you'd like.--Appraiser 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree also, as per Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge/Archive_4#Please_use_PAST_TENSE_verbs. Kablammo 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A new bridge will be here; I-35W isn't likely to be moved. If you're going to use past tense, then put on your calendar to come back in a year and clean up after yourself. (SEWilco 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Eric Brandt photography

I'm about to nominate Eric Brandt's bio for deletion. He's an amateur photographer and one of the first on the scene. Please salvage any content there that's applicable here. Canuckle 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

dimensions

I think we might have a discrepancy in the length. The design section says, "five south approach spans, three main spans, and six north approach spans." Do these all contribute to the 1900-foot length? What is the length of the portion that needs to be rebuilt?--Appraiser 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The total length of all 14 spans is 1907'. The main spans fell and I think one or a few of the approach spans fell or partially fell also (as on the train cars). The StartTrib article yesterday made a big splash on corrosion, but most of the corrosion they were talking about was not on the main spans, but in the approach spans, most of which are still standing. They'll rebuild them all, not only because of that, but also because they're going to do two 5-lane bridges, according to news reports. I haven't seen anything yet on rebuilding the approach spans however. Kablammo 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I plan on splitting up the "Design" section into paragraphs and adding a little more detail on the bridge elements. The main spans are of a completely different design than the approach spans, and the bridge overall had a downgrade from south to north. Kablammo 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

some thoughts

Here’s some quick thoughts on the current article’s contents and how it’s improved since I last visited a few days ago.

Lead: has been revived since being stubbed. Mention of replacement is good. I’d like to see some description beyond just the number of dead as to the scope of the collapse and aftermath. The federal Transportation Dept’s “worst in 20 years” got deleted but should be restored I think. A sentence or two to summarize that it received national media attention/spurred national review should be there.

Site history: That’s a good way to handle the soil issues. But the implications of the site history for the bridge are unclear. Can’t the first 2 paragaphs be condensed to “The bridge’s southern abutment was located in an area used for industrial use since Minneapolis’ early years. This long-term industrial use effectively resulted in a toxic-waste dump below the bridge.” Even with that change, to someone like me from outside the US and without access to the off-line references, it’s not clear what effect the toxic dump or the lawsuit or burning of pellets had on the bridge or its operation.

Maintenance and inspection: The analysis of the federal bridge inventory data could be shortened: “With a 50 out of 100 score, the bridge was within the bottom 4% of 104,348 heavily-used bridge structures. A 50 score represents…” Also, since this MSNBC analysis occurred after the collapse, it may make sense in the future to move it to the post-collapse reaction.

Collapse: The description of vehicle locations and rescue/escape attempts is much improved but we’ve lost indication of the sudden nature of its collapse. No mention of short duration.

Disaster response: Has improved but “responded quickly” is weaselly. Wasn’t there an immediate civilian response from neighbours? When was the state of emergency declared and did it affect how the various official agencies responded? Should mention that initially officials suspected many more deaths and casualties and why estimates were later downgraded due to the remarkable number of people who could get away safely from the scene. Any estimates on how long the recovery will take? Just something to indicate that it’s not over yet.

Aftermath: I’m still uncertain how to improve the flow. I do believe an 18-month NTSB investigation is an aftermath even though it started right away. Perhaps Local response (traffic & Twins) and a National response (Homeland Security, NTSB investigation, review of nation’s bridges, media). The Engineering Response is important but they will relate to cause of collapse and the state of the nation’s bridges and should be rolled up in those sections. For media reaction, I was hoping someone would build on my one source to describe the flickr and blog reaction but that hasn’t happened yet. I saw a (now-dead) source that said the Star Tribune had 75 staff on the story. The local media reaction is as important or moreso than the BBC.

By now, you’re probably wishing I would just do something about it but I can’t as I’m going away soon. Hope this feedback has been helpful. Canuckle 19:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Third busiest

The statement about it being the third busiest bridge is referenced to [8]. I have no doubt that it's correct, but someone should find a more reliable source, like Mn/DOT traffic counts. Someone should also check the rest of that page against our article and make sure we don't have anything that's widely-reported but false. --NE2 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an official source for AADTs of river crossings. (If anyone knows of one, please provide the link.) Someone who knows the geography has to take the traffic maps and look at the figures at the locations where the (unshown) rivers are known to be. That is easier than it sounds, as the major rivers often have highways on each bank, so roads connecting them are on bridges. I think John Weeks probably used the metro area map for the I-94 and 694 bridges [9], the downtown map (referenced in the article) for the 35W figures, and the statewide map for other crossings. His figures are essentially correct; the only discrepancy is that he has the 694 Mississippi crossing at 150,000, while the map has it at 147,000, which does not change its relative ranking. The other data on Mr. Week's interesting website correlate with our article, and in the area of bridge height cite it. Kablammo 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the map shows 150000 there, off to the southeast. Maybe the traffic count report page and that map could be linked to, since someone could verify by looking at all the bridges? --NE2 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct sir! Kablammo 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked over this map too, before Weeks' page showed up. The two higher-volume bridges in the state are the 94 and 694 crossings of the Mississippi. Some of the maps have the 94 bridge at 157,000 and some have it at 167,000. But either way the 35W bridge is third. The Weeks page is not a valid source, although he did summarize things nicely. Anyway, the 3rd busiest statement should reference--Appraiser 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I added cite but left Weeks in, as the map does not show statewide figures. Kablammo 02:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

John Weeks had asked me to help out with his Myths page (prior to my joining Wikipedia and beginning commentary on this article). I was the one who did the research into the bridge volumes, based on 2006 volumes that are easily accessible on MnDOT's website. The top three bridges, in order, were the I-94 bridge at 157,000 (that 167,000 figure is actually 2004 counts), the I-694 bridge at 150,000, then the I-35W bridge at 140,000. Given how MnDOT splits up their metro area traffic maps (and given that the I-694 bridge is not on the downtown inset, a baseline reference would be http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/maps/indexmaps/2006/metroindex.pdf , with Maps 3E and 3F showing the three bridges cited. Several other commentators/article writers are using the 2005 maps, which actually show 2004 volumes for the state/Interstate highway system. Slightly outdated IMO when 2006 volumes have been posted on the MnDOT website for over a month now. Ajfroggie 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos of signs

Could someone get one or more photographs of signs on I-35W about the closure, with the I-35W overheads covered or signed for local traffic only? --NE2 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be of interest? (SEWilco 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

It would show how signage is changed to note the closure. I would find it interesting, and I'm sure others would. --NE2 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you want?--Appraiser 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing Video Should Not Loop

Maybe this is just me. Currently the video showing the collapse is looping on the page. Given the death and injury, I think having this show in a continous loop is not in keeping with the standards of Wikipedia. Repeating the visual display of any number of people dying is not acceptable. I can't imagine doing the same on the WTC collapse or the Tsunami video. I think it should be on wikipdea, but not looping here on the main page. Thoughts? Dw31415 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the technical reason why it loops is that it isn't at the top of the page. Accordingly, if it's set to loop once, it would have completed the loop by the time readers got to it, so they'd have to refresh or follow the link to see it loop. I also don't think readers should be forced to go to a subpage to see the looping image. The image adds to the article in ways that words alone cannot, so I think it's a reasonable inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the looping sequence is helpful and agree that a single loop would not be seen by most readers. Moreover, a looped view of an event like this helps one understand the magnitude of the collapse. Moreover, since the loop is a low resolution sequence of photos running at about only 1 frame a second, the effect is very different from looping a full motion, high res video. Taken altogether, along with historical context, I don't think comparing this loop to say, a video loop of one of the WRC collapses is at all meaningful. Gwen Gale 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all meaningful comparison? At what point does video of death become meaningful? 1, 7, 3000? 216.17.5.177 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the comparison, not the video. Gwen Gale 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps adding a longer delay to the last frame of the animation would be an acceptable solution.--Daveswagon 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

3-5 seconds maybe? Gwen Gale 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you set a limit on the number of loops? No need to keep gobbling CPU, particularly for the people with 100 MHz systems. (SEWilco 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Truth be told, once it's loaded in RAM, there are so few images it doesn't take much memory or processing power at all from a computer already running a graphical browser. Gwen Gale 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but is there anyone out there still using 100MHz PCs? The only person I've known since 2000 to still be using a sub-200 MHz machine is a Brazilian friend who was finally able to retire his P5-166 last year; the only other sub-200 MHz computers I've seen online in the past five years have been people who hacked their Apple IIe's, Commodore 64s, and TRS-80 Color Computers to be Internet-capable for fun and novelty. While I'm all in favor of making web pages compatible with a lowest-common-denominator browser and computer, Wikipedia is inherently not designed as such. Truth be told, I suspect that the modern HTML that Wiki generates when you load a page would require a browser that would bring most sub-200 MHz PCs to their knees... Rdfox 76 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that loading the html of any Wikipedia page likely does require resources roughly similar to displaying that sequential loop. I also do remember watching animated GIFs on a 486 over ten years ago with no trouble at all. Gwen Gale 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I count 25 separate images. Is there a place one can go to get the individual images, as opposed to this infinite loop? Baseball Bugs 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a fair number particularly in the undeveloped and extreme developing world. Whether they ever access the English wikipedia is a different matter particularly since we've never developed a CD version although we should always give such versions consideration Nil Einne 08:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1- And again, they aren't looking at this page with full images anyway. 2- Yes we have, and this is about the last thing we need to worry about. --Lucid 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely must loop, gifs that do not loop might as well be jpgs. Nobody is actually SHOWN dying, but it's not like death isn't a major part of life (and thus, a suitably major part of any encyclopaedia) Anyone that can actually use Wiki on an old computer is going to be using things like Lynx anyway, so they don't need to worry about images. Just because you dislike the event doesn't mean that the image isn't useful, incredibly illustrative by showing THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE, and encyclopaedic. --Lucid 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I would also like to see the individual images. Unless there's some way to "freeze-frame" a gif??? Baseball Bugs 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if you're interested but there are a number of readily available freeware animated GIF editors which, as part of what they do, will display the individual frames and allow saving each one. Gwen Gale 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. But whoever put this video together should already have the individual frames, right? Baseball Bugs 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So I opened it up in the GIMP 2.2 and it gave me 26 layers, each of which can be viewed and saved as a static image. Gwen Gale 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I must say, viewing the individual images, flipping back and forth between pairs in GIMP and so on, is very interesting. Gwen Gale 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I was close. 26. Actually, the first image seems to either be there twice or there is very little difference between the first and second image. But just like with the Zapruder film, engineers (which I am not) and other interested parties need to see both the flow of the action and the individual frames, to try to figure out what went wrong. Baseball Bugs 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody is shown dying": Actually, yes, you are watching 7-15 people die. "Just because I dislike the event...the [movie] is usefull": Of course I don't like the event and of course the the movie is useful. I believe the looping gif on the article page is disrespectful. Looping gifs always strike me as cheap, maybe that's just me. I concede though that I am in the minority, so it stays. Dw31415 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, highlight and circle every death in the image for me and I'll get back to you --Lucid 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could circle the cars and buses and stuff. The images are small and you can't really tell who's who. Maybe there's a way to make it play once and not loop continuously, but I don't know that animated GIF's work that way. And the images are important for at least having some clue of what happened. Baseball Bugs 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)