Talk:Network arch bridge

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

Should be updated with: http://siberiantimes.com/business/others/news/bridging-east-and-west-elegant-new-siberian-landmark-opened-by-president/?comm_order=best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zypres (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bridges[edit]

I had removed four entries from the more examples section of the article. Three were redlinked without any sources to verify the information. One was a blue link. They were restored with a comment "restore list". No explanation why they were restored just that they were restored. I have added citation needed templates to the three redlinks and a a dubious template to the blue link.

The blue link is to Troja Bridge. The article says it is a Bowstring arch bridge. That is a different bridge design than a Network arch bridge. I do not see how that bridge is an example of this type of bridge. A4032 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the majority of network arch bridges are also tied-arch bridges (i.e. bowstring arches)? This isn't a defining relationship: it's not a requirement that they be tied-arch bridges too, although it is common, I can't think of counter-examples to it, and all the examples here seem to be tied-arches. Mostly because modern bridges of this scale (where steelwork is often cheaper than masonry and quicker to construct) will tend to be tied arches, not untied arches with abutments in compression. But certainly these are not exclusive groups, as your comment suggests.

Nor did you check the references in the Troja Bridge article. Where the first one [1] describes the network type webs that it uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not aware of that. Thank you for the explanation. Still doesn't explain why you restored redlinks that only link to this page. There is nothing to verify any of them, not even another article that talks about the bridge. A4032 (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP is not WP:RS! You can't edit one article on the basis of what another article says (or doesn't), frequently incorrectly. Of the two it's not much better to start stripping content on the basis that, "If Wikipedia doesn't say so, then it isn't". Especially not to start focussing on some aspect, the most easily reliably demonstrated of the lot, to remove it, yet doing so from an article that's almost entirely unreferenced itself. Reverting other editors on such a basis is particularly unimpressive. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you restored unsourced information that is in no way verifiable from any kind of information in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a reliable source? That is interesting. A4032 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't rely on Wikipedia. Especially don't rely on Wikipedia when editing Wikipedia, otherwise its errors propagate and multiply. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't remove things from articles that are not sourced because Wikipedia is not a reliable source? That makes no sense. I was trying to stop propagation of errors by removing stuff that didn't appear to be correct and you reverted it without doing anything to show that the content belonged. Sorry your way makes absolutely no sense. A4032 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considering removing something, then first check (WP:BEFORE could also apply) using independent, secondary sources, not WP. Also remember that there is a difference between something that is true (notable, accurate, part of some defined group etc.) and those that are also adequately demonstrating this with WP articles. There is a huge range between these two, but just as WP doesn't define truth, it's wrong to take an absence of fully written up and sourced verifiable definition as some sort of proof to the contrary. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From my investigation into the rules, the burden is on you as the person restoring the content. Not sure how something that is about the deletion of whole articles applies to removal of unsourced content. A4032 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]