Talk:Pattullo Bridge

In August an anon changed the construction date from "1935" to "1936-7" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattullo_Bridge&diff=70474086&oldid=59758008]. While this may have been a good faith edit I think someone should double-check... -- FirstPrinciples 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I read in the province that 27 people have been killed on the bridge during these last 20 years. see here: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=12feebb8-01d4-4184-adce-8903b183ac38&k=80716

I'm not sure if this could be included in the article.

How long is the main arch span? I am not able to found that figure. Can anybody help? --Jklamo 11:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we include notable Incidents (suicides, accidents, etc) in the article? 2600:100C:A203:FD7F:FCC5:744C:531D:8BC0 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose owing to WP:NOTNEWS Exp691 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The article should say so Miparnisari (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:ORIGINAL the article will be updated whenever the editors find a verifiable source containing the appropriate information. Exp691 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a clear reason that the replacement no longer belongs on this page in full anymore. It will need to be split as the name will not be used. Even if they weren't. It'll likely be split like Alexandra Bridge Provincial Park which hold the first 2 Alexandra Bridges and Alexandra Bridge (Trans-Canada) which holds the new one. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is not enough content at this time to justify a split. Plenty of other bridge articles include both the former and current bridges, such as Port Mann Bridge. Unless there are significant differences (such as a new name), I strongly suggest keeping this in one article until the length justifies a split. SounderBruce 21:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Unless there are significant differences (such as a new name)

::That's the exact reason why. My edit summary of the new page says such. "Separating the new bridge into its own article from the old bridge's (Pattullo Bridge) article as it's only a few months away from opening and will not be using the same name like the Port Mann Bridge did."

::This is why I'm so confused. This is why I'm trying to get you discuss it and you have ignored it until I undid it. You clearly didn't read my summary or the added information that the name was going to be different is TBD. This is not an issue. This is only an issue because you didn't read my summary or the new article. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This information was not added to the original article. Until the new name is announced, it is premature to have an article on the new bridge. SounderBruce 21:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::>Until the new name is announced, it is premature to have an article on the new bridge

::::It was added to the new article (since you know it was split). Now you're being pedantic. Is there a rule that says until a new name is decided? That's not how it works for sports articles. When a team moves cities they get a new article as a placeholder until a name is decided as we know it's coming. This is the same issue. 3 days ago it was announced a new name is being decided on. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::A new article is fine, but the existing content on the replacement bridge is still needed in this article to provide suitable context. The bridge rehabilitation work in 2016, for example, is only pertinent to this bridge, not the replacement. I strongly suggest working on the new article in a sandbox or draft space so that it is ready to go when the announcement is made. SounderBruce 22:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's fine and makes sense to keep the rehabilitation work. However, I don't think it should be in the replacement bridge section as it's on part of the original bridge. How about we move the first 2 paragraphs from replacement bridge section (on this page) to history. Then remove that in the new article and have the Replacement bridge section the way it for my edit. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Something like this (remove the last two paragraphs) in the section and I restore the references to the see alsos:

:::::On July 31, 2008, TransLink opted to replace the bridge, rather than try to refurbish the aging structure.{{cite web |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-tolled-pattullo-bridge-gets-green-light-1.735161 |title=New tolled Pattullo Bridge gets green light |date=July 31, 2008 |publisher=CBC News |access-date=August 27, 2016}} In June 2014, the Metro Vancouver Mayors' Council determined that the existing structure will be demolished and replaced with a new, 4-lane, tolled replacement bridge.{{cite web |url=http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/mayors_vision/mayors_council_vision_mar_2015.pdf |title=2014 Mayors' Council Report on Regional Transportation |date=June 2014 |publisher=TransLink |access-date=August 27, 2016}} Construction was expected to take place between 2019 and 2023, with the $1.3 billion funding finalized in 2018.{{cite web |url=http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/roads_bridges/pattullo_bridge/Pattullo%20Bridge%20Community%20Connections%20Consultation%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf |title=Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project: Community Connections |date=June 13, 2016 |publisher=TransLink |access-date=August 27, 2016}}{{cite news|last1=McElroy|first1=Justin|title=B.C. government to build replacement for Pattullo Bridge|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pattullo-bridge-bc-announcement-1.4538939|access-date=February 16, 2018|work=CBC News|date=February 16, 2018}} Created Account For Old UI (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Problem is I'm being stone walled by the user. They don't respond to me. They are not engaging in any discussion. Just 'Don't do that'. When I ask for their opinion on their talk page they rollback and remove it. When I propose something they basically ignore me. I really don't see how you can point that out to me but not point out the total lack of civility by User:SounderBruce

:To this time they have not commented ONCE on my proposal. How am I suppose to continue this? How am suppose to have a discussion with someone like this?

:Honest question do you think User:SounderBruce has been civil here? They reverted my initial split with no details on why. I ask why on their talk page and to add details to this talk page and they just revert it. I ask again. Same response. This is a joke. Seriously, this behaviour in the workplace would result in disciplinary again. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:That said. I'm okay with the Excerpt template. Seems like a good idea. Problem is I don't think User:SounderBruce would even weight in here. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I do not think this is the venue for discussing editor behavior, and making such accusations is not becoming of a Wikipedia editor (see WP:AVOIDABUSE). There are better ways to handle a content dispute, and I do think that the excerpt suggested by the 3O is a fine temporary solution, but clearly it needs refinement. The current implementation is not well-integrated here, and there will still be a need for information on the new bridge long after that article is developed and eventually sheds its lead citations (per WP:LEADCITE), which would leave this article with a large unreferenced section. SounderBruce 05:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see how the citation is a problem even if they get stripped in the lead. The section begins with this is taken from the other article. So, the reader knows to go there for that type of information.

:::It also has the added bonus of when one changes the other does as well. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe SounderBruce has indeed been quite civil. {{tq|q=y|To this time they have not commented ONCE on my proposal.}} By my count, they had replied three times before my response. Four, if you count their initial reversion, which is a response saying "I disagree". I also agree that this is not the appropriate venue for behavioral concerns.

::::I also agree that the lack of citations is not an issue. Because the excerpt template identifies it as an excerpt and links the page, verifiability is maintained. Consider an example listed on the Excerpt template page, Africa#Architecture. I count one citation in three paragraphs on a B-class, level-2 vital article. But, as SounderBruce says, this is a problem for tomorrow. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)