Jump to content

Talk:Koror–Babeldaob Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Koror-Babeldaob Bridge)

Untitled

[edit]

The collapse of the K-B Bridge was following a strengthening designed by an American firm ABAM/BERGER Enginerring and constructed by an Austrailian contractor Black Micro. The strengthening lifted the sagging dual-cantilever structure and fusing it into a continuous structure. The post-tensioning was the most ambitious undertaken up to that point (100 million kips). 2 people were killed in the collapse.

  • some anti-korean japanese(with nationalism) claim this bridge was built by s.korea company.

but, this bridge was No relation with s.korea construction techniques & architect & engineer & worker. here is the source.

http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0001026

Firms, offices, etc. involved with this structure

Design Alfred A. Yee and Associates

Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG

Construction Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG

Contractor Socio Construction Co.

and Socio Construction Co. is NOT S.korea company. and NO relation with s.korea construction techniques & architect & engineer & worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.48.216 (talk • contribs)

  • Then why don't you just remove the reference to S Korea, instead of half the content of the article? Also, please sign your posts and stop removing warnings from your talk page. Phonemonkey 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(For 221.148.48.216) According to "WAVE OF PACIFIKA Vol.6 (1999)", the old bridge was designed by a Hawaiian company and constructed by a Korean construction firm. Please see p.6. Thanks. -- Nightshadow28 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Socio Construction Co. is NOT s.korea firm. and that document does NOT contain that Socio Construction IS korea firm. and http://www.spf.org/ site is JAPANESE SITE. this site is NOT contain public trust information. that site is NOT Palau gov and official newspapaer. who know? that spf site informer is anti-korea japanese(with nationalism. fabricate. like 2ch japanese uyoku. like Sankei newspaper. or misunderstand?) if you think Socio Construction Co. is korea firm. and built by s.korea construction techniques & architect & engineer & worker. then, show us public trust document.(not japanese fabricated document. like 2ch source or sankei source. palau gov document is better. plz, show us.)

this bridge was NOT built by s.korea construction techniques & s.korea architect & s.korea engineer & s.korea worker. (this is "Point") and s.korea DID NOT HAVE "Socio Construction Co."! ok?

Simply I think that your eyes refused to read that you don't want. Korean Reinsurance which was the government corporation, was supported construction.[1]
Second, if you only have a question in article, you should use {fact} tag for asking source. That's very simple.
Third, your opinion is no reason for deleting the section of a new bridge. Why? -- Nightshadow28 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand. do not make misinformation by one sentence. Korean "Reinsurance" is not korea construction firm. ok? can you understand? and that document did not contain that socio is s.korea company. and this bridge was NOT built by s.korea construction techniques & s.korea architect & s.korea engineer & s.korea worker. and japan palau bridge is NOT kb bridge.Pgdn963 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether or not socio was S Korean. You deleted half the content of the article on this basis, specifically all mention of the new bridge. What is your reasoning for this? Phonemonkey 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and while you're at it, Pgdn963, could you also explain why you placed a semi-protection template on the article [2] when it obvously isn't? Phonemonkey 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pgdn963, as requested above please justify your removal of all mention of the new bridge. Phonemonkey 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to 'Indian Concrete Journal'[3] most probable cause of the KB bridge collapse was damage engendered by removal of the original concrete roadway surface. primitive cause is "repair" works. not first construction work. 86.17.247.199 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
problem is "maintenance" works. not first construction work. so, first constructor Socio has no fault. and Socio is palau company.

I found this site mention Socio as South Korean company[4]. And the problem is NOT "maintenance" issue. Either article says "Almost immediately, the bridge's durability was questioned". BTW, you can refer the picture of the old bridge with this site[5] . -Eurodollers 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you kidding? that citation does not mention socio is s.korea compamy. also, blog source and private notice board source is notable? LOL. WTFLeavepower 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

[edit]

Summary: Dispute is over whether a rebuilt bridge should be mentioned in the article. Those against argue that there is no evidence that South Korean firms were involved in the construction of the original bridge which collapsed. Those in favour question the logic of that being any reason to remove the entire section for the new bridge which has nothing to do with the old. Phonemonkey 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statements made by editors already in dispute some japanese (like Log10000) will fabricate this page. insert wrong information. put the blame on s.korean without public trusted information.(put the blame on s.korea. <- this is "only" purpose).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.48.216 (talk • contribs)

Hello 221.148.48.216 Pgdn963I repeat: please give a reason for your blanking of second half of the article (which makes no mention of south korea whatsoever and has nothing to do with what you're talking about). Also please do not edit other peoples talk page comments as you did here and here. I have reverted those changes. And again, please sign your comments with four tildes. Phonemonkey 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, whether the firm which built the original bridge was Korean or not is not relevant to whether the new bridge should be mentioned. I suggest to reinstate mention of the new bridge, and to leave off Socio's nation of origin until a conclusive source is found (I mean, honestly, does anyone actually care?). Any comments welcome.Phonemonkey 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OUT OF FOCUS. THIS ARTCLE CONTAIN Koror-Babeldaob Bridge INFORMATION. NOT JAPAN-PALAU Bridge. OK?

WHY this collaped bridge page contain 'japan is best!'(japanese nationalism) thing? if you want JAPAN-PALAU Bridge then make another page.OK?

You japanese intention is clear. Koror-Babeldaob Bridge was collapsed becaluse s.korea company.(fabrication. NO trust) and our japanese is angel. built new bridge. so, "JAPAN BANZAI!!!" <- but, WHY this collaped bridge page contain 'japan is best!'(japanese nationalism) thing? if you want JAPAN-PALAU Bridge then make another page.OK? and one more, this bridge was NOT built by s.korea construction techniques & s.korea architect & s.korea engineer & s.korea worker. (this is "Point") and s.korea DID NOT HAVE "Socio Construction Co."! ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.48.216 (talk • contribs)

221.148.48.216/Pgdn963, please point out which part of this revision states "Japan is best"? It merely states that the new bridge was built with Japanese aid, with two references. The new bridge replaces the old Koror-Babeldaob bridge, so it's the new Koror-Babeldaob bridge. What is your problem with this? Also yet again PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS with four tildes.Phonemonkey 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of focus! Why? bcz, this article contain collapsed Koror-Babeldaob Bridge. NOT Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge. OK? can you understand? Koror-Babeldaob Bridge and Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge are TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

comments

Point of Controversy

[edit]
  • 1. this bridge was NOT built by s.korea construction techniques & s.korea architect & s.korea engineer & s.korea worker.
  • 2. s.korea DID NOT HAVE "Socio Construction Co.". ok?
  • 3. According to 'Indian Concrete Journal'[6], KB bridge collapse was damage engendered by removal of the original concrete roadway surface. problem is "maintenance" works. not first construction work.(who maintenance this bridge? I still wonder why they remove original concrete.) so, first constructor Socio has no fault. and Socio is palau company.
  • 4. Koror-Babeldaob Bridge and Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge are TOTALLY DIFFERENT bridge. if you want JAPAN-PALAU Bridge, then make another page.OK?
  • 5. some japanese (like Log10000) fabricate this page. insert wrong information. put the blame on s.korean without public trusted information.(put the blame on s.korea. <- this is "only" purpose). this racist japanese intention is clear. Koror-Babeldaob Bridge was collapsed becaluse s.korea company.(fabricated information. NOT trusted fact) and japanese is angel. built new bridge. so, "KOREA IS WORST! JAPAN BANZAI!!!" <- This is racist japanese intention. but, WHY this collaped KB bridge page contain 'japan is best!'(japanese nationalism) thing? NO NEED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.48.216 (talk • contribs)
1. I never said it was.
2. I don't care and I never did.
3. And?
4. The new bridge links Koror and Babeldaob and was built to replace the old one. Why does this not deserve to be mentioned?
5. A new bridge was built. Why does that mean "KOREA IS WORST! JAPAN BANZAI!!!" Where, oh where, does it say "japan is best"?
Oh, and in case you missed it all 3 times, please sign your posts. Phonemonkey 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i answer your comment.
1. I never said it was. <---------------- ok. you are not. i already know. but some japanese wiki user said this.
2. I don't care and I never did. <---------------- ok. you are not. i already know. but some japanese wiki user said this.
3. And? <---------------- this is important factor. you can not understand? this page is "KB bridge(collapsed)" is this not important?
4. The new bridge links Koror and Babeldaob and was built to replace the old one. Why does this not deserve to be mentioned?
<---------------- i already told you. Koror-Babeldaob Bridge and Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge are TOTALLY DIFFERENT bridge. enginner, architect, made company, construction year(and more recent tchonology) and so on. AND, NAME IS DIFFERENT. if you find japan palau bridge in dictionary, then you will find "k section" or "j section"? huh? this is totally different. this wikipedia is DICTIONARY. you know?
wikipedia is searched by name. OK? can you understand waht i mean? index is different.
5. A new bridge was built. Why does that mean "KOREA IS WORST! JAPAN BANZAI!!!" Where, oh where, does it say "japan is best"? <---------------- i said. some racist japanese(like Log10000) did.
Oh, and in case you missed it all 3 times, please sign your posts. Phonemonkey 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC) <---------------- no interesting about you. sorry man. no thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.48.216 (talk • contribs) [reply]


Thanks for your response. Here are my answers.
1 & 2 - I know some people did, but that's not what I am talking about.
3 - Yes but that's not the topic of debate.
4 - The World Trade Center article has a section on plans to rebuild it. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, and the article has a section on the replacement bridge. The Tay Rail Bridge collapsed, and the article mentions the replacement bridge. I don't care if JPF bridge has its own article or not, but the fact that it replaced the collapsed bridge surely deserves a mention? Oh, by the way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia.
5 - I have looked at Log1000's edit history. He has only made six edits on Wikipedia since he started in October 2006. None of his edits imply any comparison between Japan and Korea. Where is your justification in calling this user a racist?
6 - I'm not asking you to find me interesting, I'm asking you to follow wikipedia guideline and sign your posts. Why is that a problem? If you don't know how to sign, all you have to do is ask. Phonemonkey 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Here are my answers. first, stop the vandalism. OK?
1 & 2 - I know some people did, but that's not what I am talking about. <--------- OK.
3 - Yes but that's not the topic of debate. <------------ no. It is suitable debate. and your Stubborn insistence(japan palau bridge) is clearly OUT OF TOPIC.
4 - The World Trade Center article has a section on plans to rebuild it. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, and the article has a section on the replacement bridge. The Tay Rail Bridge collapsed, and the article mentions the replacement bridge. I don't care if JPF bridge has its own article or not, but the fact that it replaced the collapsed bridge surely deserves a mention? Oh, by the way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. <--------- this is the OFF topic. and Koror-Babeldaob Bridge and Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge are TOTALLY DIFFERENT bridge. if you want JAPAN-PALAU Bridge, then make another page.OK? and encyclopedia is a online dictionary.
5 - I have looked at Log1000's edit history. He has only made six edits on Wikipedia since he started in October 2006. None of his edits imply any comparison between Japan and Korea. Where is your justification in calling this user a racist? <--------- Log1000 is hide his real ID & IP. and if you see this bridge page history, many japanese fabricate information, A few years ago.
6 - I'm not asking you to find me interesting, I'm asking you to follow wikipedia guideline and sign your posts. Why is that a problem? If you don't know how to sign, all you have to do is ask. Phonemonkey 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC) <--------- but, why do you write a annoying message in my discussion page.(OFF topic and annoying attack)? Pgdn963


  • 1. this bridge was NO relation with s.korea. and Important thing is s.korea DID NOT HAVE "Socio Construction Co.".
  • 3. According to 'Indian Concrete Journal'[7], KB bridge collapse was damage engendered by removal of the original concrete roadway surface. problem is "maintenance" works. not first construction work.(who maintenance this bridge? I still wonder why they remove original concrete.) so, first constructor Socio has no fault. and Socio is palau company. It is suitable debate.
  • 4. Koror-Babeldaob Bridge and Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge are TOTALLY DIFFERENT bridge. if you want JAPAN-PALAU Bridge, then make another page.OK? encyclopedia is a online dictionary.
  • 5. some japanese (like Log10000) write fabricated information on this page. insert wrong information. put the blame on s.korean without public trusted source.If you see article of this page some years ago, you will find some japanese had written fabricated information.
  • 6. and you Phonemonkey must stop annoying me. why do you write annoying messages in my discussion page.(OFF topic and annoying attack)? let's do right discussion about this "Koror-Babeldaob Bridge."Pgdn963
1 & 2 & 3 - I am not talking about Socio and I don't care where they are from or whether they are at fault.
4 - surely the fact that a bridge got replaced warrents a mention? If not, why? By the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you are looking for a dictionary, it is called wikitionary and it is here.
5 - Ok but I am not, and it has nothing to do with the debate about the new bridge.
6 - I am not doing it to annoy you, I am only warning you that editing other people's edits on the talk page is a breach of wikipedia policy. Yes, let's just discuss about the bridge, so please stop being disruptive. Phonemonkey 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. i answer your comment.
4 - wikipedia is search by name. OK? can you understand waht i mean? index is different. and i already told you this article is 'about Koror-Babeldaob Bridge', NOT Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge.(it is different bridge. company, engineer, constructor, designer, architect, construction year, etc, and NAME) OK? Can you understand? i recommend you you better go to other site. like wikitionary.
6 - no. you are still annoying me at my discussion page. you Phonemonkey must stop annoying me. why do you write annoying messages in my discussion page? it is clearly OFF topic. and some type of attack.('vandalism warning' attack?) I am sick and tired of you.
let's do RIGHT discussion about this "Koror-Babeldaob Bridge.", PLEASE.Pgdn963


We're going round in circles, so I will refer this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Thanks for signing your post. Instead of typing in your username, it will be easier if you type four tildes, and the post will be signed and time-stamped automatically. Phonemonkey 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why do you avoid my question? and i ask you. let's do RIGHT discussion about this "Koror-Babeldaob Bridge.", PLEASE. why don't you discuss about "Koror-Babeldaob Bridge."? This is a Point. you always avoid discuss about "Koror-Babeldaob Bridge.". why? Pgdn963
What is the question I supposedly avoided? Phonemonkey 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you always mention about Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge. Out of Topic. this page is Koror-Babeldaob Bridge, NOT Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge. i told you. two bridges are different. design and architect construction company and so on. and late bridge use more recent construction technology. this article contain "collapsed Koror-Babeldaob Bridge".Pgdn963 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where is the question which I refused to answer? Do you not agree with getting a third opinion? Phonemonkey 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of topic. you avoid, too. plz, let's discuss about kb bridge. i think that you are ignorance of this bridge. if you do not know about this bridge. plz, Do not break into kb bridge discussion.Pgdn963 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You: JPF Bridge is not the Koror-Babeldaob Bridge so it should not be mentioned in the article.
Me: The fact that JPF Bridge was built to replace the collapsed bridge should be mentioned.
That's the disagreement, right? So we're getting a third (3rd) opinion. Hope thats clearer. Any more questions? Phonemonkey 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Me' always mentioned Koror-Babeldaob Bridge.
"You" avoid and out of topic. i recommend you that let's discuss about kb bridge. you did not mention about this bridge. and i told you. japan-palu bridge is diffrent. you always mention about this.
you avoid. and i'm not.
i think that you are ignorance of this bridge. if you do not know about this bridge. plz, Do not break into kb bridge discussion.Pgdn963 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing your removal of the paragraph about the replacement bridge, and since I have no problems with the rest of the article as it stands now, I don't know what else you wish to discuss about. Phonemonkey 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my opinion is that since the bridge did collapse and was rebuilt, apparently under a different name, then what should be done is mention that briefly, no more than a paragraph, with a link to the new bridge. I don't know that a new bridge article is warranted, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge doesn't, but if there's a name change, I can see why that might be the choice. So I don't object to it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I suggest both of you practice WP:CIVIL more carefully and try to recognize what the other person is saying. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly no problem in having both bridges on one page, this is quite common across Wikipedia in similar situations. The only reason to have them on two pages is if there's so much to write that it's worth splitting; if the relation between the two is very distinct (which isn't the case here); or if they are sufficiently significant in their own right that readers would expect to find them separately. That they have different names is irrelevant - you can put in a Redirect page to deal with that, again, as has been done elsewhere.
I would suggest that to move forward one of you produces a fresh version of the article in a User Sandbox area; that can then be discussed here to see if there's a consensus to unprotect the main page and replace it. I think arguing over the current page will be unproductive, as it would benefit from several improvements other than just adding a reference to the new structure. -- Kvetner 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any counterarguments for over a week I have reinstated mention of the new bridge. Phonemonkey 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not conclusion. Still need not only citation but also proof. -- Eurodoller 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. socio is not korean company. there is no company in korean company name list. The old monument image itself it not a evidence. (or perhaps fabricated (photoshop) made photo)
  2. Don't delete this sorced material. This is not a original research. and it proved by academic document.
This led to two studies carried out by Louis Berger International and the Japan international Co-operation Agency. They concluded that the bridge was "safe" and the large deflections were due to creep and the modulus of elasticity of the concrete in place being lower than anticipated.[8]

--660gd4qo (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to socio website,

"Welcome to Socio's website. Socio is a construction and engineering firm located in Koror, Palau and operated under Surangel and Sons Co." [9]

According to Surangel and Sons Company,

P.O. Box 295, Ikelau Hamlet. 4th Floor. Koror, PW 96940 Republic of Palau[10]
  1. It locate in Palau
  2. It HQ locate in Palau, It operated under Surangel and Sons Co (palau company)
  3. This company belong to Palau
  4. The bridge designed and engineered by Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG and Alfred A. Yee and Associates. It constucted by a Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG[11] Scocio was a contractor.
  5. One of the designer, Dr. Alfred A. Yee is a Hawaii-registered structural engineer since 1955.[12]

--660gd4qo (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The metal plate which was mounted on the wall of the KB bridge exists. You can find the name of Socio and Hangul characters[13]. The name of the president, too. Socio was obviously Korean company. -218.221.111.144 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

[edit]

trash Redundant The sections The former KB Bridge and Reason for the collapse explain mostly the same things with other words. Someone with English-Engineerish knowledge (so not me, I hardly understand what the articel says) could please resolve that. --Mopskatze (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koror–Babeldaob Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koror–Babeldaob_Bridge&oldid=1208026957"