Talk:Ponte Morandi/Archive 1

Archive 1

removal of the very wrong "collapse simulations" video (why hypothesis - *wrong* - even on the positioning at ground of the debris?)

good mornig,

the "Morandi Bridge Collapse Simulations" by Kai Kostack now linked in the "External links" section, is very wrong; i don't want to focus on the 5 different starts of the collapse hypothesis (and maybe something can be right, on this side), but on the fact that all the 5 simulations finish with a very wrong positioning at ground of the debris, which don't match the real positions (..what was intended to be this video? was made to compare hypothesis on how bridge is collapsed, or to show simulations on how *surely* is not collapsed?).

The most differences between the real positioning at ground of debris and what is present on the 5 video hypothesis are about the debris on the east side of the collapsed pier 9:

• in real, a part of the road wich was on the east side of the pier9 is positioned at ground turned of 180° after a west to east rotation (not south to north rotation)
• in real the other part of road debris (the east end of the road which was part of the pier 9), is present at ground with rotation of 90 degrees counterclockwise (pointing north-east), and partially placed (crossed) under the before quoted part.

(to check this, see the 6 pictures linked on the italian language page "video su ipotesi dinamica del crollo fatti eludendo posizione al suolo macerie impalcato a est pila 9")

so, i think none of the 5 simulations can be (totally) right, and - most important - that showing informations surely wrong is not good thing: better to removal link to this video. --151.36.238.210 (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

also the picture https://www.genova24.it/photogallery_new/images/2018/08/ponte-morandi-soccorsi-croce-rossa-486252.jpg (by https://www.genova24.it/fotogallery/le-immagini-dei-soccorsi-senza-sosta-tra-le-macerie-di-ponte-morandi/ ) can be useful to right understand the positioning at ground of debris (yes, seems that the east end of the road which was part of the pier 9, is present at ground with rotation of 90 degrees counterclockwise, pointing north-east; so it seems that south-east stays has give way first than north-east stays). --151.68.10.15 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

source for official weather alert (day before collapse) and "ghost lightning" at 11:35:59 utc+2

Here below link to first meteo alert for genova (by ArpaL - "Regional Environmental Protection Agency of Liguria") published on 13 august@11:39 utc+2 (yellow level), and the second @18:12 utc+2 (grown to orange level), italian language, obviously:

• "Regione Liguria" "ALLERTA IDROGEOLOGICA" 2018_060 (Allerta gialla temporali del 13.08.208.pdf) http://www.comune.imperia.it/moduli/downloadFile.php?file=oggetto_notizie/182241234570O__OAllerta%20gialla%20temporali%20del%2013.08.208.pdf
• "Regione Liguria" "ALLERTA IDROGEOLOGICA" 2018_061 (protciv_28993.pdf) http://www.comune.recco.ge.it/po/attachment_news.php?id=1177

Also, source for the "ghost lightning" reported by LightningMaps.org (by blitzortung.org data - Collaborative amateur network for map the distribution of lightnings - by lightning detectors?) exactly near the collapsed pier9 (range area around 0,9 Km?), at 11:35,59 utc+2 - just less than a minute before the collapse (11:36,40 utc+2?) - by 78 stations; the Codacons (a Consumer organization), *seems* to officially report about this fact to the Procura of Genova on 17 august:

• https://www.corrierenazionale.it/2018/08/17/codacons-fulmine-concausa-crollo-ponte-morandi/
• https://codacons.it/genova-struttura-vecchia-manutenzione-forse-insufficiente-ma-un-fulmine-la-concausa-del-crollo/
• other on lightning by press: https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2018/08/20/tra-il-lampo-e-il-crollo-40-secondiGenova05.html

the page on LightningMaps.org linked in Codacons website ( https://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_show=search&bo_dist=1000&bo_get=&lang=it&bo_lat=44.42574777233558&bo_lon=8.888911148193301&bo_dist=1000&bo_map_zoom=15&bo_map_lat=44.42962144023137&bo_map_lon=8.878335419422342&bo_get= ) now do not display more the "ghost lightning" data (show only the last recent, i suppose), so here some screenshot about what was displayed in the days after the collapse:

Orario: 14.08.2018 09:35:59.792963840 UTC

Deviazione: 0,9km

Num Staz utilizzate: 78

• https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkkNXG3WsAAyWmd.jpg

(by https://twitter.com/damy2000/status/1029369265734987776 )

• https://66.media.tumblr.com/69373f5e94356ad4ffed5b13d284cbf9/tumblr_inline_pdnulcJiI31w7p3d4_1280.png

(by https://numeriacaso.tumblr.com/post/177130060181/elementi-sul-fulmine-che-avrebbe-colpito-ponte )

Anyway, in the weeks following the collapse, press reported that officially no lightning happened in the bridge collapse (ArpaL's technicians response: no lightning in more than 1 km around the collapsed pier http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/ponte-morandi-nuovo-video-pu-far-luce-sul-crollo-1570508.html ), so i'm asking to myself what else can be the "ghost thing" recognized as a lightning by 78 lightning detector, just near the collapsed pier9, just less than 1 minute before collapse; maybe all this 78 reports was a joke, hacking by someone, instead of real data by 78 different lightning detector by amateur network blitzortung.org ?

..if someone can get access to the 78 reports on the LightningMaps.org / blitzortung.org database, maybe can be possible understand from where, from what kind of detector the data has been produced, in order to understand what really happened on Genova sky, near collapsed pier9 of morandi bridge, at 14.08.2018 09:35:59.792963840 UTC.

--151.38.237.217 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Update about "ghost lightning"

The "ghost lightning" near pier 9 of 14 August 2018 is still reported on www.lightningmaps.org website on 8 December 2018; they show only the last 10 "strokes" in the selected area, but selecting a very small area around pier 9 - i.e. max 100 mt from his center ( 44.426060554681, 8.8885495325083 ) - only 4 "strokes" are recorded between August 2015 and 8 December 2018, and the last is exactly the "ghost lightning" detected on 2018-08-14 09:35:59.79 (= UTC+2 11:35,59.79), by 78 "Participants" and with "Deviation: 0.9 Km" ..about 40 seconds before bridge debris touch the ground.

here the direct link with 100mt search focus on pier 9:

https://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_show=search&bo_dist=50&bo_get=&bo_lat=44.426060554681&bo_lon=8.8885495325083&bo_dist=100&bo_map_zoom=18&bo_map_lat=44.426112000452484&bo_map_lon=8.88871000000006&bo_get=

click on the yellow point most close to the pier 9 to see info about the "ghost lightning"; more data - with detailed info about all the 78 reports of this stroke, how they get this results - are probably hosted by www.lightningmaps.org / www.blitzortung.org

there is online also a list of active blitzortung stations in italy: http://en.blitzortung.org/station_list.php?stations_users=0&selected_numbers=*&region_country=Italy

..i think at least 1 of the 78 reports about the "ghost lightning" was coming from one of the italian stations above listed (probably from a lot more than only one of the italian blitzortung stations).

--151.36.31.95 (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

about link removed by bot

the link added in the revision 876475343 ( en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ponte_Morandi&diff=next&oldid=876475285 ), removed by bot User:XLinkBot, seems to contain usefull content. --151.34.14.157 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

"this article is about the cable-stayed central section"...are you sure???? for what i can see on the article, this is about the whole viaduct:

• costing ₤3.8 billion
• Total length =1,182 metres
• quoting the General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge boat-crash, where the 2 piers collapsed in 1964 by Esso Maracaibo are not in the stayed section of the viaduct

And please be sure about fact that none in Genoa call "Ponte Morandi" only the stayed section, but the whole viaduct. If you want made an article only about the pier 9 collapsed, do not call the article "Ponte Morandi", but "Partial Collapse of Ponte Morandi" --151.82.167.149 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

Difference between "Bridge" and "Viaduct"

In order to right understand that Ponte Morandi is just an italian sort of slang (related to the whole Polcevera Viaduct), because none "Bridge Morandi" exist in Genoa, can be useful to talk about the difference between bridge and viaduct; in simple way:

• 1 span over a single element (usually river, or short valley, or railway, or road..)=bridge (italian= ponte)
• multiple spans over a multiple elements or very big valley, or big water area...=viaduct (italian= viadotto)

so there is none "Morandi Bridge" in genoa, but an "Morandi Viaduct" (over a valley, road, a river, building, railways, quarters...), and there is not separated name for every span - stayed or not - the whole viaduct have 1 only name: officially "Polcevera", and unofficially "Morandi". --151.82.167.149 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"concrete was only prestressed to 10 MPa"; even/only on the stays? source?

On "Design" section is reported (about the stays? about any concrete prestressed element?) "concrete was only prestressed to 10 MPa"; can someone please tell me where is the exactly source about this? Phrase citation, please, with Url, pdf, page on pdf. Thank you. --151.68.183.44 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

bricks to fill up concrete?

Some photos show what appears to be a loose core of bricks in some of the concrete structures of the bridge? [2] [3] [4] Maybe someone knowledgeable in civil engineering could comment on what this is about? -- Theoprakt (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The center of most structural members is usually lightly stressed compared to the extremities, and it is common for the interior of such structures to be hollow to save material and weight. I would suspect that the hollow tiles seen in the first image are in lieu of forming a void and removing the forms - they are permanent formwork. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you. -- Theoprakt (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Openlydialectic added the proposed split template at 7:10 this morning, suggesting to separate the collapse from the rest of the information about the bridge, but did not initiate any discussion about it here nor did they give any reasons for doing so in the edit summary or elsewhere (they haven't engaged on this page at all). Given the almost unanimous support above for merging (including after the split template was added), I suggest removing the template.

For the record, I am opposed to a split as the ongoing maintenance and history of issues is directly relevant to both the bridge and the collapse so would need to either be duplicated or inconvenience readers by requiring them to bounce between two separate articles - especially as there is not enough encyclopaedic prose to sustain two separate articles at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Thryduulf. Take away the collapse and you'll be left with a stub here. There needs to be enough material in both articles once a split has been done. We haven't reached that point yet. That is not to say that it won't happen, just not now. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. I also want to make a side note that if there ever is a split, the title should be something along the lines of "Ponte Morandi collapse" or "Collapse of Ponte Morandi". The [year], [location], [event type] naming scheme has to stop; it makes things hard to find if one doesn't have a wikilink to the article at hand. One should be able to type "Ponte Morandi" into search and have a potential article on its collapse be a second result. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/Support Just for the record, the standalone page about the collapse exists on four other language versions, which is, @PhilipTerryGraham:, really the only reason I chose the current name for the future article - beczuse that name (currently redirect) was interlinked with the other 4 langauge versions at the time of my posting.

Also, I went thru the List of bridge failures and there are multiple examples of standalone articles about bridge collapses even though all of them are either much smaller and far less informative than this article currently is or talk about accidents that resutled in far smaller nubmer of deaths. I mean the Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse freaking article about the collapse that had happened just a few months ago exists. There were 6 deaths in the accident Openlydialectic (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note that although Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse is titled for the collapse, it is about both the bridge and the collapse. Indeed, I've looked at every blue linked article in List of bridge failures for every event in 1950 and later, and in only one case is there an article specifically about the bridge failure separate from an article on the bridge (Cần Thơ Bridge, Collapse of Cần Thơ Bridge) and both those articles are individually longer than this one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Thryduulf. Take away the collapse and you'll be left with a stub here. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the leftover stub. A reason to oppose the split could be that the history of the bridge (type of bridge, upkeep) is intrisically related to its collapse, but there is enough material for two articles. As s comparison, if you skip the pictures, the overall length of the part before the paragraph "Collapse" is quite similar to Ponte Vecchio, which is a much older and historical structure. So being a stub is not the point here, IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Collapse of Ponte Morandi per @Openlydialectic:. The bridge is virtually insignificant outside of its collapse. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr. Guye: to clarify, you think there should be one article about both the bridge and its collapse, but the article should be titled for the latter rather than the former? Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Again, I am not interested if the article is split or not, I am quite neutral on the topic (maybe even supporting them to stay merged) but the reasons proposed should be as correct as possible. As I said, It can be easy checked that what is left would not be a stub, and in this case it is quite strange to state that the bridge per se is virtually insignificant. This was one of the most debated infrastructure in the 1960s, you don't invite the president of the Republic to the inauguration of an insignificant bridge. There was even a German version of the article since 2013, showing how this was not a specifically local topic.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The collapse of the bridge is akin to the death or injury of a biographical subject. Belongs in the main article. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• CommentI am from Commons and may not be too familiar with the policies of Wikipedia. I originally want to vote for support, as with quite a huge amount of deaths and casualties, and the one-year long state of emergency in Liguria, the collapse may fit some of the criteria stated in WP:GNG, but I am not sure if the situation is a case of WP:NNC. Can anybody explain this to me, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @廣九直通車: The question isn't whether the collapse is notable (it clearly is) but whether we should have one article about the bridge and a separate article about the collapse of the bridge, or one article covering both topics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I will tend to support the suggestion of creating an article of "Collapse of Ponte Morandi" with some information of Ponte Morandi in the article mentioned.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's better not fragmenting the fact for now..! Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Design - SS_Esso_Maracaibo

The ship having collided with the Urbaneta Bridge is given as the USS Narraguagas (AOG-32), wich is apparently not the right one (see discussion there: Talk:USS_Narraguagas_(AOG-32)). The right ship should be SS_Esso_Maracaibo, would someone please check and correct the link. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

 Done --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Images of the area

Hi, I have also left a message in the only working place for coordination of local users I am aware of, that is it:Discussioni_progetto:Liguria#Immagini_del_ponte_Morandi, asking for more specific images. It might not work, but I wanted to inform you in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please double check this historic image of 1966 where the bridge is under construction. It's not great but I am looking around for better historical images.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

this image of Saragat is better quality and looks like the same on another journal, so it should have been published at the time, before 1976, and should be possible to upload it on Commons. I'll look closer in the next days.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Condition of bridge pre-collapse

An interesting photograph has emerged on Twitter showing the state of the bridge in March 2017. I presume that we are not straying into the realms of WP:OR should we state that the bridge was in this condition on this date? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've asked the uploader, if the picture is theirs, to release it under an open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A response to that tweet pointed out that the picture was not of the Ponte Morandi in Genoa, but of another bridge with that name in Calabria. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sub-section on the condition of the bridge, given that the Five Star Movement dismissed warnings of its condition five years ago. Have used the tweet to show the condition of the bridge in March 2017. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I've removed the sentence about the tweeted photograph as, per above and replies to the tweet, it is a photograph of a different bridge with the same name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. Fair enough but the section will need a bit more expansion. Maybe our Italian speaking editors will be able to source more material. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rail disruption

Presumable both railway lines are closed due to the collapse. Can we source this info and add it to the Aftermath section please? Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• The best page I've found so far is [5] but someone with better Italian than me would need to be the one to turn it into an encyclopaedic sentence or two. There is also a sentence in English at [6]. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• First source run through Google Translate. I've added a bit from the second source. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge with 2018 Genoa bridge collapse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2018 Genoa bridge collapse can be made a section into this article. The collapse didn't seem to affect much more than the area around the bridge, so it would fit here well. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that article should be merged into this article about the bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Support. There isn't enough information about either the collapse or the bridge itself to warrant two separate articles currently. It can always be split out again if that changes in future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected the other article, which had only two sentences, to this one. It can be split again, when there is more, settled, content, but it will be simpler if everyone is working in one place as this tragedy unfolds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: This is a massive infrastructure failure that likely has major casualties. Please allow it to be its own article. The bridge was already notable before the collapse. People can expand the other article like any other current news event/disaster/unfolding crisis. Of course it had only two sentences - that is how these articles begin! I remember editing I think the Grenfell Tower fire article when it was just like three sentences. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: It can have it's own article when there is enough information for two separate articles, but there isn't yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Please read what I wrote, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How is there not enough information? There are plenty of articles with dozens of paragraphs of information about the collapse, the weather event that led to it, the ongoing rescue, the details on the casualties (it was 20 and is now up to 35), the calls for investigation, the response for aid, the effect it's going to have on transportation etc. How can you think that hours after the collapse and a disaster of this magnitude, the only information is a paragraph? —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What we mean is the amount of information in the article, not the amount of information in the world. If you know of more encyclopaedic information that isn't in the article then add it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, because most of the content of the article is about the collapse or related to it (which also includes the 'Maintenance and strengthening' and 'Replacement proposals' sub-sections), and it will only grow as time goes on whilst information not related to the collapse will only become more subtle. --Buwshrg (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Surprised this was never done in the first place, Plenty of info/sources on it so don't see why not. –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replacement plans?

Any news on replacement plans yet? - Denimadept (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I expect it's way too early for anything more than "it will be replaced". When the I35W bridge in the USA collapsed the replacement opened 13 months later, and that was regarded as very quick and likely easier as it wasn't in a dense urban area which will make demolition of the remainder of the bridge and construction of the replacement more complicated at a guess. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I figure they really need to start working toward a replacement immediately, as they won't get to actually start for a while yet. Time to start design and figure out funding now. - Denimadept (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but even if they started 10 minutes after the collapse it will likely be several days at the very least before there is enough to put out a press release let alone more encyclopaedic information. Remember also that Wikipedia, including talk pages, is not a forum for discussing ideas about things like this or speculating what could/should/will be done - when there is encyclopaedic information about replacement it will be added to the article, but not before. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Antonio Brencich

All bridges "eventually" need replacing; can anyone tell us more about what Antonio Brencich wrote in 2016, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Atlantia's Stock Price

Does anyone seriously give a fuck about the company's stock price, especially since people died in this accident? Doesn't it seem trivial in the grand scheme of things? I find the mere fact of including this information nauseating. 68.67.52.194 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, It is our job to "give a fuck". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Had the company's stock been wiped out, or lost 50% or something truly of notice, I would agree. But a drop of 11% and then recovered? As if it simply reported a bad quarterly financial result. I believe this information is trivial and irrelevant. Does anyone agree?68.67.52.194 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how things go, 68.67.52.194. The stock price may end up being significant at a later date. - Denimadept (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A little sad

It's a little sad that no one took note of this bridge to create an article about it before today. - Denimadept (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There was already an article on it in the Italian Wikipedia. But to be honest, there are lots of bridges around the world which aren't especially notable overseas except to specialists or unless something happens to them, as in this case. Prioryman (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

True, we don't take note of even major bridges we're unfamiliar with. - Denimadept (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm from Italy and have been on this bridge a lot. I honestly didn't think much of it and don't mind it not being on Wiki before this. I feel for all the victims, could've been me. - Ashland3000 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia had an article about it since 2010. -- Deltaray3 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In contrast we had an article on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge about 15 months before it collapsed, the Italian Wikipedia still doesn't have an article about it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Reactions

I've removed a reactions section which consisted entirely of routine trivia (a tweet by an international politician) that expressed nothing different to what is expressed in slightly different words following every disaster. Please can we restrict such a section to encyclopaedic prose about actual things that happen as a result of the collapse - e.g. if other bridges are inspected and/or closed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.jpg (discussion)
• Ponte Morandi.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletable image captioning of the bridge photographs

@Wikimandia, @Denimadept: Seeing that there's no freedom of panorama in Italy, the infobox photograph in question is pending a deletion request on Commons (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.jpg) and you've not participated in the discussion there, and you've only removed {{Deletable image-caption}} from the infobox image and not the photograph in the construction section, why? Is {{FFDC}} what you're looking for, then?

Removing the image caption of pending deletion seems silly and questionable to me. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is in English Commons, where we have freedom of panorama. If the person who took the image lied about having taken the picture, that's different. I haven't noticed the one later in the article. I'll remove that, too. - Denimadept (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Denimadept: There is no such thing as "English Commons", you're confusing several things. The pictures are hosted on Wikimedia Commons (there is only one), where the policy is that images must be free in both the country of origin (Italy in this case) and the USA (where the site is legally based), there is no freedom of panorama (FOP) under Italian law (if you want to change this, lobby the Italian government). That there is FOP in the UK and the USA is irrelevant. The English Wikipedia has a fair use policy, which means we might be able to host the image locally if it is deleted on Commons, but that is not guaranteed and it is unlikely that any more than one image of the bridge pre-collapse would be justifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Okay, Fair (use) enough. - Denimadept (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Railway

Do we know which railway line the bridge crossed? Is there an article to link to? Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Turin–Genoa_railway Andree.sk (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Società Autostrade per l'Italia name this bridge as Polcevera Viaduct (the official name). [7]Driante70 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viadotto_PolceveraDriante70, why Italian Wikipedia name this? (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the name we're using is a redirect on the Italian WP. - Denimadept (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep as Ponte Morandi is the commonly used name in English news sources Railfan23 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• @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)

Matitao that is an inappropriate tone. You may be right; that is true (note, however, that even if something in Italy is called something in Italian, it may be called something else in English, and no Italian source can convince me that calling the bridge Ponte Morandi in English is wrong).--Nø (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Where I argued about name in my post? --Matitao (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If your elliptical sentence is meant as a question about where in your post you argued about the name of Ponte Moradi/Viadotto Plocevera, please check where you made your comment. It is a thread under the heading "Official name" about which name it is most appropriate to use in this article. I posted "keep" (i.e., keep the name "Ponte Moradi"); you posted "ridiculous".

If your elliptical sentence meant something else, please explain.--Nø (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep common name.

Matitao, I understand both English & Italian. Please stop your uncivil insults about Italian language skills, and I will likewise refrain from criticizing your difficulty with English. Many computerized translators are available online, so I think we can all understand one another reasonably well, even if not perfectly.

The Italian PDF that you cited above proves only that Professor Morandi was sensible enough not to call his terrible bridge "Ponte Morandi" when it first opened in 1967. Furthermore, http://www.sttan.it/Ponte_Morandi/ponte_morandi_default.html , the Italian source page for your PDF link, clearly uses "Ponte Morandi" twice in its own URL, and it displays "Ponte Morandi" or "Morandi Bridge" ten times on the page. "Polcevera" is mentioned only three times: once in parentheses, and twice in outdated articles from decades ago.

Further above in these Wikipedia comments, Railfan23 listed MANY recent major sources, in both English & Italian, that all write "Ponte Morandi". Then the next three commenters all cited the official English Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME that supports keeping the article title "Ponte Morandi" instead of the official name. You can see that I just added another reference to the article, quoting an Italian engineering professor who directly wrote in English: "The bridge that collapsed today is part of the Polcevera Creek Viaduct. It was built in a densely crowded urban area which is occupied by two railroad yards, large industrial plants and the Polcevera Creek. The bridge is known as Morandi Bridge from its designer, the engineer Riccardo Morandi."

You have disregarded all the published information that we have highlighted here, while you allude darkly to other errors in the article for which you do not provide a word of evidence. "Basta" – enough already. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

PerhapsFor sure my English is not perfect, but can you quote where I argued about name in my post? Or where I changed the title of the article? Thanks.

About the "part of", you source is wrong and inaccurate: you can also find tons of sources saying the Earth is flat. Drawings and text in the PDF I linked demonstrate that entire viaduct is a project of Morandi.

About my "dark allusion without a word of evidence" is also incorrect. The "words of evidence" are the sources already in the article, but badly translated. So. My edits are continuously reverted -> You "understand both English & Italian" ->fix it. --Matitao (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

new collapse video released on 2019 july 1 (from "ferrometal" cam)

on 2019 july 1, italian authorities release a new video of the collapse, from "ferrometal" camera.

the video released has very low frame per second (so low that some seems to be lost/removed?), and not perfect/complete view.

my opinions about what it seems to appear in the new video:

-the south-west stay is not the first thing that give way.

-the south-east stay is not the first thing that give way (unclear, maybe partial broken on top, near the antenna)

-(none of the whole 4 stays was the first thing that give way).

-the top of the antenna is not the first thing that give way.

• the first thing that seems to give way is a small road part (deck) near the east-stays (between the antenna and the east stay, very close to the east stay) ; this first broken part seems literally to disappear, there is a missing part in the ground debris after the whole collapse about this section
• then the south-east stay (that seems not broken at the moment), can not bring the full decks-weight on the top of the antenna, giving no more safe-balance load to the south-west stay loads
• the south top of the antenna (already a bit turned to the west side from several years, maybe since from defective building phase) without the load of the south east stay, it sligty move to west and keep position for a short instant.
• the south-west stay, not broken, loaded by the weight of the west bridge part, bring down to south-west the not more resistant south part of the antenna

not sure about all this, just my opinion about what this video seems to show.

i'm very sad about this; morandi has spend big part of his life claiming attention to the defective result of his bridge in genova, but - since from the building phases - it seems that some people have not liked to give attention and right consequence about his alerts and preoccupations, rejecting to admit that something don't work right in the bridge.

this disaster have not right to be happened.

--151.68.107.48 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

video cut - frames removed (officially declared)

On July 8, was officially declared that video is cutted:

Morandi, il video del crollo tagliato per rispetto nei confronti delle famiglie, su Il Secolo XIX, 8 luglio 2019. URL consultato l'11 luglio 2019.

--151.38.169.228 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

no frames removed from Ferrometal video (officially declared)

the text below is from it:Discussione:Viadotto_Polcevera, added on july 19 (and the same day removed, with talk protected, for unclear reason - see related history):

video ferrometal - il 12 luglio smentita di tagli (ma da altri giornali)

rispetto all'articolo del secoloXIX datato 8 luglio su tagli operati dalla GDF al filmato ferrometal (ilsecoloxix.it "Morandi, il video del crollo tagliato per rispetto nei confronti delle famiglie" "I militari del Primo Gruppo della Guardia di Finanza hanno eliminato alcune immagini in cui erano visibili e riconoscibili alcune delle vittime"), c'è da aggiungere che un articolo-fotocopia su genovatoday.it e genovaquotidiana.com del 12 luglio riporta sempre la GDF a smentire tagli:

• genovatoday.it "Video inedito crollo ponte Morandi: la Finanza smentisce ritocchi alle immagini" 12 luglio 2019 12:10

• genovaquotidiana.com "Procura e Gdf: “Le immagini del crollo del Morandi non sono manipolate”" 12 Luglio 2019

visto che l'articolo del secoloXIX è ancora online senza nota di rettifica alcuna (e visto il contenuto, sembrerebbe doverosa, se nessun taglio era stato a suo tempo dichiarato dalla GDF), ne pare che il secoloXIX abbia fatto ulteriori articoli in tema, c'è di che non venirne a capo.

possibile che su questi fatti contraddittori ci siano solo fonti così marginali e isolate?

qualcuno ha notizia di altre fonti sui due accadimenti?

--151.34.148.77 (msg) 00:20, 19 lug 2019 (CEST)

--151.18.8.189 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible translation issues

There is a word "relevable" in the subsection "Aftermath and Reactions" which I looked up but doesn't appear to be a word in English. The references #85 & 86 are both in Italian, so this might be easily rectified. Amorilinguae (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably relevable was wrong translation from italian rilevabile, from italian verb rilevare;
Now is ok, but with more edit about the meaning of the whole story.
--151.36.82.28 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Repair

IP 5.170.45.10 keeps adding in a mention that the viaduct was demolished and not repaired into the last sentence of the lead. Their first edit summary appears to be an argument that the bridge should have been repaired [8]. The mention of repair is awkwardly placed and unsupported by the body of the article - there was no serious proposal that the viaduct should be repaired and restored. I've removed it twice, and received increasingly contentious edit summaries in response [9] [10]. The insistence on mention of repair needs consensus for inclusion - was there ever any real suggestion for repair of the remainder after the collapse? Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a good bit of material on the replacement, designed by Renzo Piano - I'll see if I can summarize that in the article, since it's an important missing piece. Acroterion (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If you go to the italian wiki it:Viadotto_Polcevera#Dibattito_sul_destino_del_viadotto, you can find a lot of info about how much relevant people (and with relevant reason) had ask for repair, and also operative plant about this has been proposed. And which not everybody had likes the assignation of the new viaduct design to Renzo Piano. Unfortunately, all the source quoted in the italian wiki about this are in italian language (and is hard find the same info in english..!), so if - as it seems to be - you don't speak italian, try to understand the real situation about the "repair" option with google translator or with some help from someone else. --5.170.47.142 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a try. There's not been much of anything published in English about all this. I can sort of read Italian, but it's not good enough to get all of the nuance. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Collapse speculation

It's been four years, and this text is out of date:

"A preliminary investigative report suggested the pillar itself may have collapsed first,[62][63][64] but Genoa prosecutors had not provided the report's authors with a local video showing the southern stays gave way first.[65] There is speculation that lightning may have struck the stays, or a landslide could have destabilised the base.[66]"

Perhaps this needs a rewrite to summarise initial reactions? ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Tendons (Stays)?

The third paragraph of the section on "Maintenance and strengthening" introduced the undefined term "tendons" that had corroded. I have done my best to define it from prestressed concrete where the word is defined. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the cited source to understand which element of the bridge's tendons were found to be corroded, although the remaining text seems to imply it was the stays. If that is so, it would simplify the text to replace all instances of "tendon" with "stay". If you can help, please do.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Conclusions re cause?

Are any conclusions yet available, from official or professional investigations, as to what caused the failure? 90.244.204.38 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jersey barriers

these concrete barriers weigh 4000 lbs. It appears that there are possibly 100 of these on the bridge. I believe this contributed greatly in this tragedy. 2601:188:CA81:DFF0:51D9:733E:70C3:15FE (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)