Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of longest suspension bridge spans/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 [1].

List of longest suspension bridge spans[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Civil engineering, WikiProject Bridges and Sam.

There are a lot of problems with this one.

  • It has a very small lead that doesn't properly summarize the article.
  • I'm not sure I like the formatting, and the embedded external links should probably be turned into references.
  • Speaking of references, there are a lot of improperly formatted references.
  • A bunch of unsourced statements, especially in the bottom sections.
  • The biggest problem: a lot of dead external links, thus that means many of the entries are unsourced.

-- Scorpion0422 04:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) What do you think the lede should say that it is missing?
2) Please read the original nomination about the external links. As far as I know, there is no other way to create a table that automatically numbers. This has been discussed previously.
3) I'll work on fixing these when I have a chance. Please help.
4) The history section comes from Bridgemeister.com, which is listed as a reference. A citation can be added. Please add citation needed tags anywhere else you'd like to see them, and I'll work on finding them.
5) These links are constantly going dead. When I notice (which is rarely), I replace them with links from archive.org or find new ones. This will take a while to fix, thanks for linking to the reference tool. That will make things easier.
--☑ SamuelWantman 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lead summarizes the article very well, it could mention things like which is the longest, newest, which nation/city has the most on the list, etc. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It meets the featured list criteria as I see it. Prose is used where required in the article. The lead could be expanded to be more engaging to those who do not have familiarity with the subject, but it accurately outlines the how and what of the list. The list is comprehensive, covering both the longest spans in use as well as the historical record-holders. It meets the structure criteria. The style and visual appeal are there: good use of picutres, etc. The article is not subject to any ongoing edit war. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the fact that a lot of the entries are essentially unsourced is not of concern? Because FLRC is meant to improve existing FLs, you really shouldn't say it should be kept until after all concerns are addressed. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's be clear here. There is very little on this page that was added without a source. Many of the sources are now dead links. These can be fixed. The orignal sources of the list (listed in the reference section at the bottom) are now obsolete. In essence, this page has now become the most up to date list of these bridges that I have found. That is to be expected with a wiki. This page is constantly maintained, and people add bridges as soon as they open to the public. Other more static resources cannot compete with a wiki for this sort of accuracy. In addition, there is rarely a reliable third-party source for the length of bridge spans. Any third party listing of a bridges length probably originated from the maker and/or operator of the bridge. I don't know of any organization that measures these spans independently. Everyone takes the word of the engineers and surveyors hired by the builders of the bridge. So in essence, the only source of information for these bridges is the bridges owners. On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone caring to challenge the statistics claimed by a bridge owner. --☑ SamuelWantman 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Just a general list for now.

  • "This list ranks the world's suspension bridges by the length of the main span (the length of suspended roadway between the towers). " Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging lead sentences.
  • Why link "bridge" when "suspension bridge", a much more high value link, is already linked.
  • There is no summary of the list at all or context. Yes, the lead "accurately" outlines the list, but FL standards have risen a lot, and leads are expected to provide context and summarize the list. For example, simply define what a suspension bridge is.
  • I seriously doubt that all the images are in order. For example, File:Tamar Bridge Cornwall Devon.jpg, how do we know that the author has released the image under the GNU Free Documentation License? I see no indication in the provided link.
  • References need major cleanup, but I wouldn't worry about that until all the necessary citations are added.

Right now, the list for sure fails criteria 2, 5, and 6 as well as the lead of the criteria, which states that FLs should "[meet] the requirements for all Wikipedia content", which includes image use and citations. The list is by no means bad, but not quite at current standards. It's been nearly three years since promotion, so naturally there will be things to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is easier to fix some of these issues than comment on them. This list had a comprehensive review of all the images when it was first promoted. If there is a problem with any specific image, please list them, because I am not aware of any. What makes you think the list is not comprehensive? I believe it is more comprehensive than any other that exists anywhere! What are the problems that make you think it fails criteria 5? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an expert on images, but I know that not all of them are properly licensed. Sorry I meant criterion 6, not 3. Criteria 5—Just at random: Conversions are not provided for units ("History of long spans" section); spaced en dashes should be used as separators in lists instead of en dashes; the flags don't really serve a purpose; abbreviations of US states should be spelled out; refs are not properly formatted (need last access date, web title and publisher). Criterion 6—Why are external links used in the ranks section? The red asterisk is annoying. Another random image issue: File:Elizabeth Bridge small.jpg has no attributions. These are just examples of things that need to be fixed in addition to the general things I mentioned above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just now copied the attribution for the original image to the small image. Please read the original nomination discussion for the reason for the external links. There is no other way that I am aware of to create a self numbering ranks. The external links can be used to verify the bridge statistics. There is rarely any source for this information other than the bridge owner/builder. Nobody that I know of independently verifies the length of bridge spans. "en dashes should be used as separators in lists instead of en dashes"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what you mean by "self numbering"—why not just put in plain-text numerals? WRT en dashes, see this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I added some semblance of formatting to the refs. However, the publishers need to be more descriptive ("Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" instead of "panynj.gov"), and some web references still need to be formatted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for trying, but now all the rankings are wrong! Perhaps you should figure out how you are going to get all the rankings to work before reformatting everything. I don't see that the "standard" style adds anything to the list. It was clearly stated that the rankings were links to the bridges web-sites, or other references. The guidelines for links/refs used to have some lee-way. Has our guidelines become so rigid that we need to hobble lists to create uniformity everywhere? If so, that seems unfortunate to me, and I for one, am not interested in putting the effort into hobbling this list. Good luck to you... If you succeed, my hat is off to you. If you don't, I'll be reverting to the previous version when you are done. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fixed the numbering issue, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • My hat is off to you! Since you seem to know your way around references, do you have any suggestions for a way to add a citation to bridgemeister.com for the section on historical bridges? The first reference ( on the oldest bridge) leads to a page that is linked to the next bridge, and that bridge is linked to the next, etc... Does each line need its own reference? Is there a way to reference the entire section as coming from Bridgemeister? Thanks for your help. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues I just found this today, after making some edits to the article. One issue I still have with the article is that suspension bridges is a fairly broad class that includes a particular type of suspension bridge, (for want of a better name) a suspended-deck suspension bridge. I think all the bridges on this list are of that type. But what about the other types? This list might be more interesting (and certainly more complete) if it included the other types of suspension bridge, perhaps in a chronological order. That would bring in many of the important historical bridges. Or perhaps this article should be renamed? --Una Smith (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list itself more.
  • Some of the sections can be made into table format, like the bridges under construction/history of long spans/ranked by total length/planned and proposed briges
  • Some statements need referencing, like in the Planned bridges never built section
  • There are dead links
  • The reference section needs to be reformatted into a more presentable general/specific referencing--Truco 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Many problems with this article, suggests starting with Truco's comments.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do the other sections need to be in a table? Most of them are prose. I think they are better as they are. The Planned bridges never built section was added after this reached featured status. I think the section should be marked as needing references, or deleted if that would keep this from being de-featured. If it is featured level without the section, isn't an additional section marked as needing citations an improvement? Being featured, doesn't mean that we should not allow the wiki process to keep improving the content! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this is a list, and it is more presentable in table format. This is comparable to tallest buildings list, such as the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. (which have the under construction/proposed in table format).--Truco 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I have questions on the reliability of many of the refs. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example? What are your questions. Without specifics, how can anyone possibly fix the problems you see? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references are now in the proper form. I'm working on getting rid of the dead links. It is much better now than it was when it was first promoted to featured status, and it continues to improve. If I wasn't spending most of the limited time I have discussing this and other pages, I could have fixed these issues. I would suggest that people first make critical comments like those above on the talk pages of articles or lists and letting some time go by before nominating the page for delisting. That would be a much more positive, less combative approach to fixing the flaws that you see. Look at it from my point of view. I spent weeks collecting the information for this list, and weeks bringing it to featured status. I've monitored it for years, keeping the information accurate. Nobody has challenged any of the information in this list as being inaccurate. Now, without prior warning, you want to delist it because some links have gone dead, some things aren't quite perfect in the formatting, etc... This is not a good way to encourage people. A much better approach would be to drop a comment on the talk page, and actually make some of the improvements that you think need to happen. Save the delistings for things that have real serious problems that don't get dealt with over time. This page is not a serious problem. Delisting it will not inspire me to continue to keep it up to date. What it might possibly do is inspire me to find a new hobby! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the FLRC director
  • I realize efforts are being made to address the present comments, but there's a lot of work to do on this last. From a cursory look, several references need to be formatted using {{cite web}}, the "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref, the external links to pictures should be cut, and everything should be linked in the sortable table. This FLRC has been open for quite a while now, and I probably will be inclined to close this when GimmeBot next runs on Wednesday barring significant improvements to the article in the time. To the editors addressing the issues with the article, I'd recommend that you ask the people who left comments to expand on them if you don't know what to address. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you expand on "the "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref"? Do you mean that each bridges "ranking" should be entered in the table as a "hard" or "static" number? The "ref" system for ranking made it easy to add a new entry and not need to "re-number" the entire list. There can be one to five new entries in a year (as bridges open). A "static" number could make for tedious editing. Is there an example of another "dynamic" way to wiki-code the ranking besides the "ref" system? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"several references need to be formatted using {{cite web}}"
These are slowly getting fixed. I have limited time to work on this page. If I didn't spend as much time responding to these comments under the threat of delisting, It would happen faster.
Honestly and to be frank, it's not my problem. If you're unable to fix the standing problems within the scope of the FLRC, then I'm going to delist. You're more than welcome to open a peer review and go to WP:FLC after the list is delisted. Now, I don't want this to be delisted; I'll be happy to see this stay a featured list, but the problems raised to need to be addressed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref"
I think this is a very bad suggestion. The list was featured with refs used this way, and it makes the list much, much easier to maintain. I would rather have it delisted than comply with this. In fact, I would revert anyone else who put in numbers instead of refs. I am not interested in the tedium of updating a list of numbers several times a year. I wouldn't ask it of anyone else.
That's a really poor reason. List contributors update lists in such a manner all the time. Your willingness to update the list, as it is with your willingness to address to the problems here, isn't really my problem. Also, previous comments have noted that the lead is insufficient, so you inevitably will have to place references in the lead, wrecking your format. This change will come at some point. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the external links to pictures should be cut"
Why? These are a useful shortcut to find these images which are on the articles for each individual bridge. It clearly illustrates that there is not a free image available. The list was approved for featured status with these links, and nobody has objected since (that is, until this comment).
Pretty sure it's a violation of WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. If you don't have an image, then you don't have an image. Take a list such as List of Nobel laureates in Literature, which has a decent number of laureates missing pictures because they're not available. Not having images available will not impact the article's FL status. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External photo links add value - I would disagree with your position on this. You say that the article violates the WP:NOTLINK policy. This policy says that WP is not "a mere collection of links". This article is not a collection of links. The "linked photo" is only used where there is not a photo available within Wikipedia. If the article was "a collection of links" it would have an external photo link for each bridge. Since there are only 14 out of 100 entries that have a linked photo, I am unclear how this makes the list "a collection of links" and a violation of policy. Further, all of the bridges that are missing internal pictures are outside of English speaking countries-so it is logical that bridges there exist (and will continue to be added) that cannot have pictures that meet the licensing requirements of WP. Your determination on this seems arbitrary to me.
Second, you say the article "violates" WP:EL. The nutshell of guideline says that External Links should be (1) minimal, (2) meritable, and (3) directly relevant. I consider 14 out of 100 to be minimal. They are meritable to the list and helpful to the readers. If an English visitor to Chongqing, China has a picture of a bridge in the background of a photo and wants to identify it, they would be able to use the list and the photo link to determine if it is the Second Wanxian Bridge in the background. Since there is not yet an article for this bridge, and there are not yet any acceptable pictures uploaded to WP, the linked photo provides readers with very good information to supplant that provided in the list.
As an aside, I note two things. That WP:EL is only a guideline. So it is more preferential than policy and yet you use the term "violation". Second, you toss out these comments saying you are "pretty sure it's a violation". I recommend that this process think about following the spirit of Verifiability#cite_note-1. By this I mean the following: "when there is an assertion that the list does not meets a policy (or follow a guideline), direct quotes from the policy (or guideline) should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the issue." Yes, this is more work for the volunteers that participate in this FLRC process, but the project editors like Sam and I that come along will be more amenable to fixing not just the FL list articles, but all articles when we are given better specifics. Aren't better articles the entire goal?
I say this because several comments you have made could feel like a WP:BITE to those not familiar to the FLRC process. Things like "I'm going to delist" and "your willingness to (update/address) … isn't really my problem." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Penny! I am so amused that you have mentioned WP:BITE. I've been a Wikipedian for over 5 years, and an Admin for more than 3. I feel covered with teeth marks recently. Perhaps BITE needs to be rewritten about biting anyone -- new or old. If anything, it seems many of the newbies I've interacted with recently, have been the ones nipping me. We're all volunteers here. We should be making things pleasant for each other. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"everything should be linked in the sortable table."
What does this mean?
Everything should be wikilinked within the table if it can be (namely the locations). As the positioning of the cells can change at any given time, it's not known which cell may be above the other, thus the proper practice is to link everything. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This FLRC has been open for quite a while now, and I probably will be inclined to close this when GimmeBot next runs on Wednesday barring significant improvements to the article in the time.
If you close this as a delist, I'll probably stop working on maintaining it. If you close it as a keep, I'll slowly keep fixing the links. Delisting it would seem like a lack of good faith in the work I and others have been doing with this list. What does it gain? Do you think anyone other than a Wikipedian cares that a reference is not formatted correctly?
This FLRC has been open for about three weeks. Two weeks is the normal allotment. If I'm not seeing significant progress within that time, then I'll be more inclined to have the list be delisted, the problems be fixed without having a time frame, and the list be brought back to WP:FLC to be evaluated by the FLC regulars. As for your comments about references and other minutae, this is a featured list: it is supposed to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and be a sterling example for other lists on the project. Not addressing issues such as references would be contrary to that goal. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"To the editors addressing the issues with the article, I'd recommend that you ask the people who left comments to expand on them if you don't know what to address."
You've got this backwards. I've left lots of comments asking for explanations on this page, and most people have not bothered to come back here after making drive-by critiques. To my eyes, that illustrates what is wrong with this process. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant go to their talk pages and ask for more commentary. The onus is on you to fix the list, not them. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now fixed all the dead links, the bridges under construction or proposed are in table format. The external links, previously used are now all references. All the dead links are gone. Almost all of the reference formats have been fixed (I'll get the last of them soon). I don't agree with any of the other suggestions, and I don't think policy or guidelines require them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Improvement has been made, but there are still a few issues. Some of these may not be desirable, but are needed to keep this as an FL.

  • Remove the flags per MOS:FLAG.
  • The lead needs expansion, including a summary of the list (longest bridge, which country currently has the most on the list, etc.). There also needs to be more explanation about the basic construction and architecture of bridges. This will require inline citations in the lead, meaning that the current table numbering system will have to be converted to a fixed format. Sam, I know you are opposed to this for maintenance reasons, but it is simply better and more visually appealing. If it helps, I am willing to help implement the new numbering system.
  • Some of the references need to be converted to a legible and understandable format, e.g., ref 55.
  • I agree with Sephiroth that the image links need to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the major things. If these are addressed, then this list will be pretty close to keep territory. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are the same as Dabomb. In addition, some of the locations in the propose buildings need to be more exact. Using "near" and "city A to city B" is not right, especially in a sortable table: be consistent. Also, "ideas proposed" should just be proposed. Finally, the timeline should also be in a table as seen in this building's FL List of tallest buildings in Baltimore.--Truco 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't add the flags, yet I also didn't remove them after someone else added them. At first I did not like them, and thought of removing them myself. Over time, I have found them to be quite useful. If you are scanning the list for a specific country, It is easier to spot the flag than the name in print. I don't see how the use of flags here is counter to to MOS:FLAG. It is directly relevant to the chart if you are scanning for the country. At most, I think this is a matter of taste. I can see a good reason to keep the flags for scanning purposes. The only argument against is an interpretation of a guideline of which I don't concur.
  • I'll take a stab at the lede.
  • I already said I would fix the last of the references.
  • I don't see why a linked image is alright in a section called "external links" and not alright in a table. It is useful, and not against any policy that I know of.
  • The reason a proposed bridge might be located "near" and "city A to city B" is because it is hasn't been built yet! When planners start talking about bridges they talk about creating a connection from a place to another. The exact location is part of the preliminary planning for the bridge. Also, since these bridges have recently been proposed there is very, very little information about them. This was one of the reasons I did not originally think a sortable list was appropriate. Wikipedia is about verifiable information. If there is NO information to be found, or the exact location has not been decided, you don't want me to make it up, or fudge the information so that the list sorts nicely, do you? Surely, there must be some leeway in your exacting standards for lists to account for such a problem!
  • I'll change "idea proposed" to "proposed".
  • I've been thinking about a timeline, but hadn't yet decided on a format. I'll take a stab at it when I have a chance, and my time isn't taken up responding to these comments.
  • Changing the refs to numbers will make it much less likely that this list will be maintained. Please don't do it (unless you are volunteering to maintain it). It is exceedingly tedious renumbering a list of over 100 entries when a new long bridge has been completed (this happens several times a year). Eventually, the wiki software will have a provision for auto-numbering for tables. Until then, I think it is a big waste of time and effort to do it manually.
--☑ SamuelWantman 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the "linked photo" issue. They are limited to bridges without uploaded photos. They are especially valuable on WP:REDLINK bridges (typically those in a foreign-language country) where there is not yet enough published information to develop even a stub. The list is the only place in WP for this info. This is why they add value.
Please provide a quote of the policy or guideline that has led you to determine that this limited number of "external photo links" is not appropriate within the list. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_longest_suspension_bridge_spans/archive1&oldid=1138490212"