Talk:List of bridge failures

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 3655 days are automatically archived 3 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

Bridge on River Douro, Portugal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1202214.stm

Back in '01, bridge collapsed, killed 70.

Quebec railway bridge

quebec railway bridge is also not only a big disastour but it also killed many people 86 workers were working when the bridge collapsed and 75 people were killed and the rest got injured. Unsigned by 70.75.65.53

Opening date

Ponte das Barcas -> Oporto 29th March 1809

Stirling Bridge

External links modified

Armando Garcia Cifuentes

Bridge	Location	Country	Date	Construction type, use of bridge	Reason	Casualties	Damage	Comments
Temporary footbridge	Havana	Cuba	25 February 1958	Temporary footbridge	Bridge struck by an out-of-control Ferrari sports-racing car, driven by Armando Garcia Cifuentes, which then ploughed into trackside spectators during the 1958 Cuban Grand Prix	7 killed, 40+ injured	Bridge destroyed	Unknown how many deaths/injuries specifically due to bridge collapse

External links modified

Previous Redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lost information about bridge failures

At 17:40, 16 January 2018‎, ChieftanTartarus deleted the 104,655 bytes article List of bridge failures 4 minutes after his own deletion proposal, ie. without any discussion. As I can see, amount of information from the deleted article were not incorporated here, ie. they are lost by the undiscussed deletion act.

Btw., sams and broadcast masts and towers have their own lists. Why just bridge collapses should be mixed with this disorganized jumble? --ŠJů (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů:Everyone is aware of this, it is quite clear in the edit logs, you have restored an article which constradicts another article and recreates an issue which has went unsolved since 2009, I suggest you undo your edits, considering all of this information is over in the other article and stop accusing me when I solved a problem, I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:BOLD which entitle me to take this action, the other article is more organised than the other one. No information was lost. I made the edit more than a week ago, people have accepted it. You're edits have made it a lot more difficult for me and many others. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: Such a massive lost of relevant information about bridge failures is surely not in compliance with purpose and aims of Wikipedia project. If you found some "contradiction", you should correct the specific "contradiction", not to destroy massively the content of Wikipedia. If you want to merge two articles, you should propose the merge, invite contributors to consider your intention, and finally, to realize a real merger, not only to remove the whole extensive article. --ŠJů (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging people to back you up when harassing me on multiple pages is inappropriate, I've had enough of this. I suggest you stop or I have no choice but to go to the ARB. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Against the deletion

I'm strongly against the previous undiscussed deletion of this list. Amount of information from this article were lost. The mixed and unordered List of structural failures and collapses should be rather sorted and split to the existing and new specialized lists by type of structure. --ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the article was not deleted, it was redirected, and the reason why was explicitly explained in edit logs. This article was a Copy/Paste of the other article, you're claiming information has been lost but giving no evidence for this. You can't come in against a 'deletion' when the page was not deleted (hence why the discussion was not needed, it was a redirect per WP:BOLD in order to solve an issue dating back to 2009.) If you wish to do what you've said above, I invite you to make new pages for each of the types of failures, and then delete the main one, don't just restore pages which are duplicate information, it is most unhelpful. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of this article caused massive lost of relevant information. You didn't attempt to do real merger of the articles; just nothing from this article was transferred to the target list. Btw., an opposite procedure is desirable – to sort the mixed unordered list to special list and add information.

To remove such an extensive list only 4 minutes after the first deletion proposal and without any discussion or consensus is very inappropriate. I hope, you are able to admit this fact. --ŠJů (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - ChieftanTartarus, on the face of it, ŠJů is correct: this article contains substantial detail that is not present in the redirect. A plain nuke & redirect doesn't do it justice. I suggest getting a few other editors' opinions (maybe open an RfC?) and, if merge is the result, perform a proper content merge. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I want an apology from him for assuming bad faith over on the other talk page before I discuss anything with him, but either way do what you want with the article, I give up with the attempts to edit in good faith, I just get trashed every time. I don't want to be bothered by this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, it is not so difficult to understand that such a massive lost of encyklopedical information, gathered by tens or even hundreds editors of the article over 13 years, is a serious damage of Wikipedia. Such a brutal intervention should be not made without consensual consideration. I made no speculation about your faith, such speculations are irrelevant. --ŠJů (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll get an administrator to deal with you since you clearly don't know that it's against policy to assume bad faith, I didn't want to report you but you've left me no choice. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss this issue with you if you willingly admit your error in judgement in the wording of your previous statement. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep - I was not aware of the other article and have no interest in it. - Denimadept (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment - This isn't a deletion discussion, it's someone voicing opposition about a previous edit. There is a new discussion that hasn't been started yet however relating to splitting the other article into more suitable lists which I invite you to start if you so wish. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not wish. That would assume that I was interested in some kind of change. I see the present situation as just fine. I haven't bothered to do more with the other article than quickly skim the first few pages. I had no interest in it. - Denimadept (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - If you want to change the other article, why are you removing content from this one? I think I'm missing something. I'd expect such a discussion would occur over there. - Denimadept (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not the one who made the split suggestion that's why, I don't see why two articles have more or less identical information. That's why I didn't start the discussion over on the other talk page. This entire section essentially serves no purpose to either talk page, but I cannot archive it as I'm technically involved in the discussion since I had to defend my Good Faith edit Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have started the split article discussion over on List of Structural Failures and Collapses, I'm archiving this section as it no longer serves any purpose to either article or the proposal. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2018 Florida bride type

Milvian Bridge

AbsolutelyNOTaRobot, I have reverted you again. First of all, you are pointing at the main article, but what you say in your edit summary isn't in the main article but in Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Second, what's in the article doesn't bear out "failure":

As Maxentius had probably partially destroyed the bridge during his preparations for a siege, he had a wooden or pontoon bridge constructed to get his army across the river. The sources vary as to the nature of the bridge central to the events of the battle. Zosimus mentions it, vaguely, as being constructed in two parts connected by iron fastenings, while others indicate that it was a pontoon bridge; sources are also unclear as to whether the bridge was deliberately constructed as a collapsible trap for Constantine's forces or not

I don't know how you define failure, but "partially destroying" it kind of obviates any discussion of failure. And if the replacement bridge (the sentence in the main article is faulty) was "deliberately constructed as a collapsible trap", then there certainly is no "failure", even if "the temporary bridge set up alongside the Milvian Bridge, over which many of the Maxentian troops were escaping, collapsed": if it was a trap, it was supposed to fail. So it succeeded. And maybe it wasn't a bridge to begin with but a series of pontoons, which is only a kind of bridge.

The problem here is of course that you are trying to get all History Channel and try to solidify historical accounts into things that you can classify and categorize. And if something is so clearly an example of whatever, in this case a bridge failure, it should be easy to add a citation attesting to the fact. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, as you point out, it is described as a "collapse" in the article for the battle. The edit referred to the replacement pontoon bridge, not the partially destroyed bridge. Your quote states it is not known if it was intended as a trap. If the replacement bridge was intended as a trap, it would have to allow Maxentius to withdraw his army first, he certainly did not intend it as a trap for himself and his own soldiers. In either case, its collapse fits the definition of failure.

I'm not clear how a pontoon bridge, being a kind of bridge, is not a bridge. Perhaps I've misunderstood, can you please explain this point?

As I understand it, this page is an attempt to categorize events found in historical accounts. The majority of items on this list do not have citations, is there a reason this entry in particular requires one? AbsolutelyNOTaRobot (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you don't understand this: if the "replacement" bridge was designed to fail, its failure was in fact a success, though if indeed Maxentius' own forces were harmed by its premature failure, we're really talking about the unintended failure of a designed failure. Or something. Except, of course, that none of this is certain, not even the very existence of the pontoon "bridge". Since the entire "failure of a bridge" isn't even clear in the very article (again, not even the article on the bridge, but the article on the battle), or well-verified, it should be verified here. Bottom line: this is so vague, so fraught with doubt (opening line: "As Maxentius had probably partially destroyed the bridge"), we shouldn't list it. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple references in the article on the battle which discuss this. If it was a trap, Eusebius' Life of Constantine, i, 38 covers this moment:

he essayed to cross the river which lay in his way, over which, making a strong bridge of boats... the machine erected on the bridge, with the ambuscade concealed therein, giving way unexpectedly before the appointed time, the bridge began to sink, and the boats with the men in them went bodily to the bottom.

It failed when it was not intended to fail.

Again, plenty of sources agree on a bridge of boats; the only positive disagreement I have found is in some translations of Lactantius, whose description generally disagrees with that of everyone else. There are three other pontoon bridges on this page, seemingly without controversy. The Ponte Milvio article includes a link to the battle, which then includes this incident, I would not expect more.

You keep returning to the partially destroyed, permanent, bridge - would it help if I were to change the listed bridge to "Unnamed bridge near the Milvian Bridge"?AbsolutelyNOTaRobot (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

UK vs England

Saale river bridge collapse

Date of Construction

Västra länken

Forbes Avenue Bridge over 9 Mile Run and Fern Hollow Creek

Good (enough)?

Sanibel Causeway/Pine Island Bridge

Strasburg, Virginia January 1996

Ferns Hollow Cause Determined

2021 Suez Canal obstruction

List of ravine and other failures

As there are now at least 10 ewxamples of ravine failures, it has been hived off to Draft:List of Ravine and Other Failures.

More information Bridge, Location ...

Bridge	Location	Country	Date	Construction type, use of bridge	Reason	Casualties	Damage	Comments
Mamatlakala highway accident	Mamatlakala	South Africa	28 March 2024	Bus crashed through bridge barriers onto ravine 50 metres below		45 killed; 1 injured	Bridge has minor damage to railings	Bus catches fire.
		Malaysia	12 February 2024			1 killed; 4 injured		^[1]
	Bansko	Bulgaria	17 March 2024		While skiing; 3m drop to ravine	1 injured		^[2]
	Penang	Malaysia	24 September 2023			1 killed; 10 injured		^[3]
	Mabinay, Negros Oriental	Philippines	21 February 2024	off cliff into 40m deep ravine	Brake failure?	14 killed; 3 injured		^[4]
	Iloil	Philippines	5 December 2023		Brake failure?	26 killed; ? injured		^[5]
	Huanta	Peru	18 September 2023	200m deep ravine		24 killed; 21 injured		^[6]
	Muar	Malaysia	25 December 2016	5m deep culvert		14 killed; 16 injured		^[7]
	Qila Saifullah	Pakistan	8 June 2022		Speeding?	22 killed; 0 injured		^[8]
	Penang	Malaysia	25 September 2023		Downhill road	1 killed; 5 injured		^[9]
	Ayuterra	Malaysia	6 September 2023		Elevator cable broke	5 killed; 0 injured		^[10]
	Cavite	Phillipines	6 January 1967			80+ killed; 60 injured	CV; ME; NG	^[11] Almost world record
Tam Duong bus crash.		Vietnam	15 May 2005			19 killed	Bus fell 150 m (490 ft) down ravine after colliding with motorcycle

Close

Reasons and other abbreviations

More information Code, Problem ...

Code	Problem	Remarks
NB	No barrier
WB	Weak Barrier
SP	Speeding
SR	Slippery Road
UR	Unsealed Road	more likely to slip
BF	Break Failure
ST	Stearing failure
OV	Overtaking
SI	Single lane road
PH	Pothole	Causes vehicle to veer
KI	Killed
IJ	Injured
RV	Ravine Height
NS	No signs	such as "No Overtaking"
PP	Police Present
SH	Steep Hill
SC	Sharp Curve
CF	Cable Failure	Elevator
DH	Down Hill
CV	Convoy
NG	Neglience
MF	Mechanical Failure
BU	Bus
TK	Truck
VN	Van
CR	Car
CO	Collision

Close

If you search for "Ravine accidents" there are quite a lot of examples, enough to have a Draft:List of ravine and other failures. ----MountVic127 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There may be some merit in skipping past accidents with fewer than, say, 4 or 10 killed and injured.

References

Talk:List of bridge failures

Bridge on River Douro, Portugal

Quebec railway bridge

Opening date

Ponte das Barcas -> Oporto 29th March 1809

Stirling Bridge

External links modified

External links modified

Armando Garcia Cifuentes

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Previous Redirect

Lost information about bridge failures

Against the deletion

2018 Florida bride type

Milvian Bridge

Casualties

UK vs England

Saale river bridge collapse

Date of Construction

Västra länken

Forbes Avenue Bridge over 9 Mile Run and Fern Hollow Creek

Good (enough)?

Sanibel Causeway/Pine Island Bridge

Strasburg, Virginia January 1996

Ferns Hollow Cause Determined

2021 Suez Canal obstruction

List of ravine and other failures

Reasons and other abbreviations

china or PRC?

Related Articles

Related Articles

https://web.archive.org/20090821192159/http://www.macombdaily.com:80/articles/2009/07/17/news/srv0000005860485.txt

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/07/17/news/srv0000005860485.txt

http://web.archive.org/web/20101105004711/http://www.thedailyworld.com:80/articles/2007/08/15/local_news/03news.txt

http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2007/08/15/local_news/03news.txt