Talk:Bridge

For reference: conventions used in this article

WP guidelines do not require the use of these particular conventions, but applying conventions throughout an article improves the uniformity of the article, which is essential for meeting GA and FA criteria. For reference, some of the conventions currently used in this article are:

• American spellings
• Date format: 15 July 1975 (DMY); BC/AD
• Measurement units: Metric (Imperial may be in parenthesis)
• Sources: All sources are defined in the Sources section using a "Cite" template
• Citations use "sfn" or "harvnb" template; use "sfnRef" template for anonymous sources
• Bundle citations: multiple adjacent cites are bundled into a single [nn] superscript using Template:Multiref
• Book sources: include only one of ISBN, OCLC, LCCN, etc. No dashes in ISBNs.
• Sources: include author-link, if available
• Footnotes: any facts stated in an explanatory footnote require a citation. Same for image captions.
• Journal & magazine sources: include ISSN, if available (format nnnn-nnnn)
• No quotes in citations. If quote is needed: put into an efn footnote (or body text)
• All page numbers (or ranges) end with a period.
• Titles of all sources use Title Case (regardless of how the source capitalizes itself)
• All images aligned on right side
• Dashes use n-dash (not m-dash or hyphen)
• Do not use false titles (MOS:PSEUDOTITLE)
• Citations to sources with 10 or more pages require a specific page number
• Avoid the word "The" in front of a bridge's proper name, especially in image captions, unless it is required for grammar purposes.
• Use Oxford comma
• Follow WP:Summary style and use subarticles to keep this article consistent with WP:SIZERULE
• Spell-out numbers twelve and smaller
• Foreign words and phrases: italicize them, and put English translation in parenthesis after the foreign word/phrase (unless there is a good reason to do otherwise)
• Sources do not display "location" field/city.

If anyone thinks these should be amended or revised, please discuss. Noleander (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that cables of large suspension bridges can reach over 1 meter (3.3 ft) in diameter and weigh over 20,000 tonnes?

• Source: * Gimsing, Niels J. (1997). Cable Supported Bridges: Concept and Design (Second ed.). Wiley. p. 56. ISBN 9781119951872. Retrieved 1 September 2025. diameter over 1 meter. Jones, Vardiman; Howells, John (2000). "Suspension Bridges". In Ryall, Michael (ed.). The Manual of Bridge Engineering. Thomas Telford. p. 603. ISBN 0727727745. Retrieved 1 September 2025. 94 tonnes per strand.. Sangree, Rachel; Shafer, Ben; et al. (2003). "The Structural Art of the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge" (PDF). Perceptions on the Evolution of Structures. Retrieved 2 October 2025. 290 strands in a cable

• ALT1 ... that bridges are often used as metaphors in literature, representing transition or growth?
  Source: Cruickshank, Dan (2010). Bridges: Heroic Designs that Changed the World. Harper Collins. pp. 9–10. ISBN 9780007881086. Retrieved 1 September 2025.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremy Hambly

Improved to Good Article status by Noleander (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Noleander (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC).

• Drive-by comment: I'd suggest adding {{Convert}} to ALT0, and abandoning ALT1 as it is not particularly interesting (and the bar for interestingness should be high for a topic like this — there's a cornucopia of possible bridge facts and we only get to DYK this once). Sdkb ^talk 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion: I added convert template for the diameter (not sure if needed for tonnes). Agree that ALT1 is not great. Noleander (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've given a more detailed review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bridge/archive2 § Comments from Sdkb. Everything looks good for ALT0 (ALT1 fails on interestingness imo). Sdkb ^talk 08:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• • Comment during review for promotion: @Noleander and Sdkb: ALT0 and its sources appear to refer solely to suspension bridges, not to other bridges generally or even other bridges that use cables. So I'm adding "suspension" to the hook to clarify. Hopefully this won't pose a problem for queuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Citation formatting within markup

@Sdkb: - Thanks for improving the lead: switching the 1st two paragraphs is definitely an improvement.

That edit also changed the markup layout of all the Template:cite citations in the article (before, each template field was on its own line). I presume that markup change was an unintended consequence of the edit mechanism you used? Do you mind if I flip the cite layouts back to the original until the FA nomination is over? It is 100x easier for me to read & edit the citation markups in the original layout. After the FA nomination is over, I have no problem changing the cite markups. Noleander (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I used VE, and that must have introduced the change; it wasn't anything I did intentionally. Yes, feel free to change that part back to whatever is best for you. Sdkb ^talk 00:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Is aqueduct or a pipeline a bridge?

According to the article, aqueduct is a bridge. But in the Russian language aqueduct (if it's not used for movement of people or vehicles), is not a bridge. Who is right? What if an oil pipeline goes above a road? Is it a bridge? Nemohuman (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In English, an elevated aqueduct, crossing a road, or river, or rail line, or anything really, IS a bridge. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as user Hilo48 says, in English any structure that passes over an obstacle is considered to be a bridge ... including structures that do not carry human beings, such as aqueducts and oil pipelines. Noleander (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Taxonomic bridge data not verifiable

See talk page discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges_and_Tunnels#Bridge_Type_InfoBox_-_"taxonomic"_data_is_not_verifiable. Noleander (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)