Talk:Viaduct - Wikipedia

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

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial comments[edit]

The bridge stub isn't entirely appropriate, as this article isn't about a specific bridge, so I would suggest it is removed or replaced - any comments? Lynbarn 08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While it doesn't describe a particular type of bridge, it does describe a style related to bridge design. Elements of other bridge types could be combined in a particular design, yet they remain in the same catagory. Furthermore, it is linked from the Bridge page, as is the Aqueduct article. I think no change is needed. IntrigueBlue 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But my point was that the stub is for use when the article is about a specific bridge eg The Clifton Suspension Bridge or The The Golden Gate Bridge, or even Thelwell Viaduct but NOT about viaducts in general. Lynbarn 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I see your point. Perhaps the stub needs to be rephrased in that case. While I understand that precident is somewhat meaningless here, a cursory look through the bridge definitions list yields a few more examples where the bridge stub tag is used: Extradosed bridge, Tilt bridge, Tubular bridge, and Weigh bridge were the four that I noticed. Given the relatively widespread nature of the issue, I would suggest that this discussion be continued in the Bridges index so that some degree of standardization can be agreed upon. IntrigueBlue 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad Viaducts[edit]

This article didn't say anything at all about railroads. Nothing. So, I added some. Viaducts have been built in many big cities that are railroad centers, especially to cross the quite wide railroad yards that are located there, such as in Birmingham, Alabama and Atlanta, Georgia. Also, long viaducts do carry railroads over wide valleys and over city centers.72.146.43.188 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention or picture of the Berlin Stadtbahn http://www.humantransit.org/2009/09/viaduct-love-in-berlin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listohan (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve consistency in link list[edit]

I think Thelwall Viaduct in the list of well-known viaducts should be linked as a phrase rather than to the article on Thelwall, which includes no mention of the viaduct. The reason why I hesitate to change it outright is because no article currently exists for the viaduct, potentially giving readers less information than they might otherwise have had access to. Any thoughts on this? IntrigueBlue 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added: Also, the link to Nuselsky most [sic?] points to an image while the others point to articles. However, there is no article for that one either, so again the issue arises of denying access to what might otherwise be useful information. IntrigueBlue

Actually, the link is to ThelwAll, not ThelwEll, which might explain why there is no mention of the viaduct (which carries the M6 over the Manchester Ship Canal). Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Thelwell or its viaduct yet, it seems, although I agree, the link should be changed. Lynbarn 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will update the link and spelling. Given that you seem to know at least something about the Thelwell viaduct, would you be able to add a stub? IntrigueBlue 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a stub for Thelwall Viaduct

Greg 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viaduct list[edit]

I'm wondering just how many of the viaducts listed qualify as well-known. Perhaps we should start a more complete list akin to the List of largest suspension bridges, and keep this list to a couple of particularly notable ones. In particular I don't think the recently added link to the Alaskan Way Viaduct qualifies as notable in any way, since many large cities have similar types of roadways. The photo from the viaduct's article could certainly be used as an example of a typical urban viaduct, but I don't think direct reference to the viaduct itself needs to be made. IntrigueBlue 08:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed the link, replacing it with the mentioned image illustrating potential uses for viaducts. Feel free to edit/revert if you disagree. IntrigueBlue

Because of the regional nature of defining well-known viaducts, I have created a new viaducts category, linked from the article proper, and removed the list from the article. I have added [[Category:Viaducts]] to all viaduct articles formerly linked from this page. Please do so for any that you may have come across that I missed.

I have also created a new stub for the Nusle Bridge (Nulesky most), since linking to the image is inappropriate. Please help to expand it if possible. IntrigueBlue 01:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

The definition used here doesn't jive with a few dictionary references I've checked. See Merriam-Webster and other references on Dict.org. Of course, both could be right, since they're not really incompatible descriptions. —Mulad (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster definition is inadequate - but we cannot expect dictionaries to carry every possibility of a complicated language. Viaducts do not only carry highways/roads, but they can also carry railroads. Shoot, viaducts carry highways over railroad yards, and viaducts carry railroads over groups of roads, such as in city centers. What I see here is a lack of three-dimensional thinking - but I'm an engineer! Don't get so tangled-up in merely linguistic things.72.146.43.188 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much difference, that's basically what the article says. The etymology as listed is different and perhaps should be changed, but otherwise I don't see a problem. If you would like to change the definition to make it more accurate by all means do so. IntrigueBlue 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the original Roman use of the word was referring to "a long arched bridge", typically stretching over land. Today however I think only fragments of that definition needs to be fulfilled for a structure to be called a viaduct. Being Swedish, I'm not sure to what extent this applies to English, it might be something limited to the Swedish language only.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important thing: many of dictionaries write, that viaduct is a bridge for crossing a valley or a gorge. Without this words we get just "estakade"/"estakada"/"естакада"/"эстакада". Dinamik (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As English doesn't distinguish (as other languages do) by a bridge being over water and a viaduct being over land, I have tried to define as succinctly as possible what makes a viaduct different from a bridge:

A viaduct is a bridge with two or more consecutive spans of the same length and design, not including the end spans.

Basically I think everyone would agree that a viaduct is longer than a bridge, not necessarily by objective length (because some single span bridges are longer than some multiple span viaducts), but by having multiple repeating spans. The tricky bit is teasing out how many spans does it take to go from a bridge to a viaduct. I'm saying that a bridge with one to three spans is always a bridge and a viaduct could be as short as four spans if two of those spans are essentially the same. (End spans always go to an abutment so are always slightly different.) Seam.us (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there should be more on what a viaduct actually DOES.Any Comments?

Vidock[edit]

Particularily in the mid-west United States viaduct or overpass is also called a vidock. Most likely a mispronunciation of viaduct that just caught on.

The following link is a person describing directions.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=66748&page=6

In these books vidock is also mentioned.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W_NbxQurmG0C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=vidock&source=web&ots=x7nhkfWgiK&sig=DLO_n4TmAtoEybD9XhUR24i6EvM#PPA71,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=lWHIKs-djPoC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=vidock&source=web&ots=afk_b3qOMd&sig=2ZPmIFDypCVkApheh4evZkmVddo

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ef0TzhOrfGUC&pg=PA221&ots=2x5-gGOe5g&dq=vidock&sig=bLz66lNibrdK8Ky933AKZxw3NR8

Why a duck? 132.68.74.8 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vidock was also a term used in the New Orleans area in the early to mid 20th century describing a bridge that crossed an at-grade railroad track or railyard. The term has mostly fallen out of use as the older generations have died off. 504roadtrips (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romance Languages[edit]

re: viaduct and ponte, a resounding "huh?" Is that in the Latin? Is that in all of the Romance languages? In which Romance language is it "ponte"? You can't provide a single word and claim that it is part of tens of languages. They are all different. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tens of languagues" - LOL. Ignoring all small offshoots and dialects (which is what we common folks really do), the Romance languages are Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, and the dead language of Latin. That only adds up to SIX. Don't try to split hairs. Now, on the other hand, "Latin" as in the language is always capitalized. The word "latin" means something else.72.146.43.188 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the stem words for the corresponding words in various Romance languages. Since all Romance languages stem from Latin, the corresponding words can be derived from viaduct and ponte (or rather, pons). For example, Italian ponte, Spanish puente, Portuguese ponte or French pont. Likewise, viaduct is viadutto in Italian, viaducto in Spanish and Portugues, and viaduc in French. The difference is that pons is always built to cross a water obstacle, viaduct always to a land obstacle. A pons which has many spans does not become a viaduct in Romance languages if even one span is across water.62.237.141.27 (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when I read the first paragraph of the article I imagined that aquaduct was a modern english language construction akin to television. But as viaducts aren't a modern invention, how is it that all the romance languages use it, if it wasn't a latin word? Seam.us (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but the sentence "A bridge spanning water is called ponte" a) is illiterate. b) It makes it sound like all Romance languages use the term "ponte". What the writer was trying to say in his/her confused and illiterate way, was that "A bridge spanning water is called, in the various Romance languages, by terms derived from the Latin pons-pontis." Or something of the sort. It hardly seems relevant or a point worth making so I took it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.141 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the Italian word is not "viadutto" but "viadotto". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.141 (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faribault[edit]

I removed the prominent reference to Faribault.

Faribault does not contain a viaduct as the term is defined in this article and is not and has never been a rail center of more than strictly local significance. The notable bridges in Faribault include a steel span carrying S.H. 60 across a rail line as well as the Straight River, a single stone arch span carrying a rail line over 7th Street, and an unusual stone span where two streets of relatively minor importance cross. While the first of these, especially, is referred to by local residents as a "viaduct" (in this as in many other rural communities any highway crossing a railroad above grade is so named despite the more widely accepted definition), it is certainly not a notable structure that would serve as a useful example.

I left a note for the IP editor who added this reference.

Finally, I note that the Stone Arch Bridge is a historically significant structure perhaps 50 miles to the north, which may well bear mention in this article.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viaducts over water[edit]

The section of viaducts over water first states Viaducts over water make use of islands or successive arches, then in the next paragraph mentions the Millau Viaduct. That bridge neither makes use of islands, nor of successive arches. Either the first paragraph is wrong, or the wrong example has been picked. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]