Jump to content

Talk:Ponte Morandi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matitao (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 15 October 2018 (→Official name: collection of mistakes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Viaduct vs bridge

I have tried to clear up confusion between the viaduct and the [cable-stayed] bridge; the latter being part of the former. I suspect some of our sources are also confusing the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now undone two reverts of this, neither of which were consistent with the rest of the article. Obviously, I'm not going to keep doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has again been reverted, with no discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored the bridge is part of the viaduct formulation (although present tense rather than past tense, that's a separate discussion if anyone wants to have it). I was very tempted to leave a note saying to discuss on the talk page before changing it, but as there isn't explicit consensus here (just your and now my comments without objection) I decided not to. If it is reverted again without discussion I probably will though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unarchived) I've just restored this wording again, this time with a note explicitly saying it needs to be discussed here first. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The change was most recently made by user:Voxfax, with the edit summary "correction by itwiki's text" [1]. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The official name is "viadotto Polcevera". Hope this help. --Matitao (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the entire viaduct structure is "Viadotto Polcevera", but this article is about the cable-stayed central section, the "Ponte Morandi". I've reverted your edit. Railfan23 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NO. The entire bridge/viaduct is a project of Riccardo Morandi, not only the cable-stayed section, and his real and official name in official documents is "viadotto Polcevera". Please do NOT invent wrong fantasy informations. --Matitao (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official name

the official name of the bridge is Polcevera Viaduct but newspapers also use the unofficial voice of Ponte Morandi.Driante70 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a move war is brewing I've move-protected the article for two weeks. Should you wish the page to be moved, please take this opportunity to discuss the move here, providing reliable evidence supporting a move of the article. Fish+Karate 13:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Società Autostrade per l'Italia name this bridge as Polcevera Viaduct (the official name). [2]Driante70 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viadotto_PolceveraDriante70, why Italian Wikipedia name this? (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the name we're using is a redirect on the Italian WP. - Denimadept (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In English-language news reports the name "Morandi Bridge" and/or "Ponte Morandi" seems to be the most common name used. So I would argue that this is the name that the English Wikipedia article uses. "Polcevera Viaduct" is the name of the entire structure, but "Ponte Morandi" is the name of the cable-stayed section that collapsed. A non-exhaustive set of examples: BBC News CNN, Fox News, NBC News etc. There are some English language news reports that use "Polcevera Viaduct" but far fewer, and many of those describe that as an alternative name to Ponte Morandi. If you compare Google Searches of English language news reports, Ponte Morandi/Morandi Bridge is overwhelmingly the most frequently used name. Railfan23 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that there are plenty of Italian-language news sources that use Ponte Morandi, eg Il Foglio, Corriere TV, Le Iene, Il Dolomiti etc. I don't have a good idea of how respected/reliable those publications are, but they seem legitimate. Railfan23 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

official name from google maps 146.241.195.205 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was involved in the move war I should probably explain my reasons for the reverts- Personally I felt the now current name should've remained as per COMMONNAME and per the fact the majority of sources use this name, I also felt a RM was a much better of doing things as opposed to more move warring. –Davey2010Talk 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used ...―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change – "Ponte Morandi" is the way it is known as in Italy and in most English-language sources. Strong WP:COMMON NAME argument vs little-used WP:OFFICIAL NAME. — JFG talk 00:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep common name. To those arguing for "Viadotto Polcevera" or the like, please note that no-one denies there is a thing having that official name; we do not need more documentation of this fact. What you need to convince us is that it is wrong to denote the part of Viadotto Polcevera that collapsed as "Ponte Morandi". By the way, the viaduct itself is part of the A10 morotway, another official name.--Nø (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Ponte Morandi is the commonly used name in English news sources Railfan23 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NøIt's ridiculous that people living hundred km from the real place pretend to know better than people living near the place the topic "part of" (and also other themes), and defend this sci-fi theory without ANY source. R i d i c u l o u s. Here the source: be sure to read and understand all. BTW, the entire article contain a lot of errors and misinterpretations, but I see that people not understanding Italian sources pretend to have the control over the text. Great idea. See you. --Matitao (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

engineer Gabriele Camomilla say "has been a lightning"

https://notizie.tiscali.it/cronaca/articoli/fulmine-causa-crollo-ponte-morandi/

in the link above (in italian language), engineer Gabriele Camomilla talk about the bridge fall, and say the reason is probably a lightning.

Camomilla held the position of head of maintenance of the company "Autostrade" on behalf of the State and then for the Benetton group until 2005.

The lightning ipotesis is generally not reported by the main media on italy, and also on the article about the Morandi bridge in the italian language wiki you can not find something about this (nothing at all about the lightning, even nothing about the storm...), except for the related talk page (where is generally reputed as a stupid idea, not good to be placed in the article).

you (english language wiki), you that report in the article about the storm and even the lightning, what do you think about the opinion of Camomilla engineer, is matter or not? --31.159.123.195 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How reputable is that source? Are the comments being reported elsewhere? Is this person's background as an engineer? Has he worked on this specific bridge? In unreliable sources that I've seen, speculation from those with an engineering background but no knowledge of the actual structure has generally been of the opinion that a lightning strike is unlikely to have been a significant link in the causal chain, but in combination with other more significant ones it could have played a part. The questions are intended to help work out how much weight we should attach to this person's views. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; Engineer Camomilla is already quoted in the article (Ponte_Morandi#cite_ref-18 and Ponte_Morandi#cite_note-47), and it seems to be a very skilled man. The source of the interview is not a common main press in italy, but is probably that this point of view have some problem to find way to be exposed. Before this interview, Camomilla release other words to main press media about this, leaving understand that probably a "black swan" reason can be possible. But, at the time, in italy It's hard to understand how many hard rain, storm and wind was present at the fall of the bridge (not during 2 hours before or 2 hours later: in the exactly moment), and more hard is understand if really one or more lightning have really touch the bridge exactly before the collapse.. and where (in the top, in the bottom, on the stays..?).
try to read the interview to Camomilla; if you can not understand the italian language, try with google traslator.--31.157.229.207 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Railway accident navbox and cat

Jmv2009 has removed the {{2018 railway accidents}} and the categories Railway accidents in 2018 and Railway accidents in Italy. I accept that the collapse of the bridge was not a "railway accident" in and of itself, but it was an "accident affecting a railway". Two railway lines were closed as a direct result of the collapse. For all I know, they may still be closed, some weeks after the accident. For this reason, I contend that the navbox and categories are valid, and should be restored. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they should be restored. You just said it yourself very clearly: "the collapse of the bridge was not a railway accident." Railway service is often disrupted by other incidents (nearby fires, construction, weather, etc), but these events are not what the railway navbox & categories are meant for, especially when no trains or train passengers are physically harmed. You'll see that Railway accident re-directs to Train wreck, and Category:Railway accidents by type also follows this consensus definition. Let's stick to it here. —74.101.35.44 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ponte_Morandi&oldid=864129283"