Jump to content

Talk:I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge

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

Renaming

[edit]

Two local media outlets are now saying that the name of this bridge will be St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge.[1][2] Does anyone object to renaming the article to that?--Appraiser 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. It appears to be the name MnDOT is using. It will be interesting to see what effect usage here will have on internet searches-- the phrase and its varients yields a grand total of three Google hits now. Kablammo 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be Saint Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge? Seems a technicality but consider Saint Paul, Saint Peter, etc. .:davumaya:. 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, yes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree. But I've never actually seen the name non-abbreviated. Is it possible that the official name starts with "St." ?--Appraiser (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Page Seems to Be Out of Date

[edit]

I went on to check this page about the enw bridge and how it has been progressing and was very disapointed that it hasn't had any major updates to it since October. I have seen the MNDot page on this bridge a few months back and I was hoping someone was getting pictures of the new bridge being built here or would have placed the concept images on the page. Also alot of things about the design has happend since October and needs to be reflected here. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one. TheMissileSilo (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have pictures, but the site is messy and umpteen photos of bits of steel and concrete don't add much. The already included pier photo shows what has actually been completed. Closed sections of 35W are full of equipment and supplies, resembling any construction site. First girder pour began several days ago and I don't think it's out of the wooden shed which is hiding it. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:St Anthony New Bridge Fly Over.png

[edit]

Image:St Anthony New Bridge Fly Over.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction?

[edit]

Isn't this bridge under construction now? If so, the current "future bridge" template should be updated to "Bridge under construction". - Denimadept (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are building it right now. --75.72.165.109 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice that the "future bridge" template was swapped out as suggested. - Denimadept (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little too indepth / new photos?

[edit]

Why does the article delve so much into the construction companies that lost bids? It seems a bit of a wank job to promote them and their work even though they lost or something. I'm sure it shows how they matched up competitively to the winning bidder, but the selection process as noted in sources relied heavily on their bid submission rather than their portfolio. That's how "objective" bid processes go. .:davumaya:. 19:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Initially there wasn't much else to put in the article. Have the lawsuits been settled? If so, the whole "other bidders" section could be deleted.--Appraiser (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In effect, it was "padding" initially, for an article that no longer needs padding, so it could go. Besides which, the awarding of contracts is a done deal. The only reason for keeping it around would be if there was some serious question of skullduggery. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah I guess we could use some more updated photos since the span is pretty much done, I'll snap some todah. .:davumaya:. 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any volunteers to be the first wikipedia editor to drive over it once it's opened? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you get a riverside picture to replace the copyrighted drawing now in the infobox? The rationale for using it surely no longer applies. I expect the opening to be approximately Oct. 1. If it's a weekday, I expect I'll use it on the first day.--Appraiser (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos. Which illustration are you specifically referring to? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this one--Appraiser (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that's looking downstream? So someone needs to get a photo from the stone arch bridge? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That view is actually looking upstream (steam plant is in background), but looking downstream would be better since the 10th Avenue Bridge would be in the way if you were looking upstream.--Appraiser (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's kind of what I was thinking, and I wondered how they managed to pretend the 10th Avenue bridge wasn't there. So the stone arch bridge would be the place to take such a replacement photo, presumably. That should be easy enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you there's a Wikipedia editor already on at least one of the teams which is working on the bridge. Bet they've already crossed it, too. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or they will when they come to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New I-35W bridge in the early morning.

I took this one this morning, trying to beat the large crowds that will be visiting the place later today. The sun was on the wrong side of it, so it's not so good. But it's free. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New I-35W bridge in the early morning.

This one has a darker cast to it, hence it's not as washed out, but is also harder to see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pictures. I lightened the second one, uploaded it to Commons, and replaced the drawing in the infobox. Baseball Bugs, please check to see if the license and other information is correct. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New I-35W bridge photo modified by Appraiser.

I think the license info is OK, but I'm not expert on that stuff. I can see why MDNOT had an upstream view. For one thing, the various signs along the 10th Avenue bridge are looking that direction. Also, it's a lot less "busy" of a view than the reality shown here: You have that leftover pier in the foreground (any idea how that was used way back when?), then the catwalk for the spillway and lock, then the I-35W bridge, then the 10th Avenue bridge, all scrunched together thanks to the wonders of photography. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in a drawing, they can do whatever they want. Unfortunately, actual photos are going to be cluttered. I saw a really nice aerial one in the Star Tribune, but it's copyrighted. Anyone have an ultralight aircraft?--Appraiser (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, but I don't think I could work my camera if it's mounted on a kite. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the picture has to carry an explanation that the support seen is not part of the bridge is somewhat discouraging. I pray we can amend this post hast with a decent picture from the other side that actually shows the damn bridge and not a pic of both bridges melted together like some kind of inbred halfsie. --Mierk (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bridges are very close together, and you can't get an upstream shot of just the one unless you get an extreme fisheye lens and then it would look silly. Tell ya what: Instead of praying for a better picture, pray that the bloody thing doesn't collapse this time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol these pictures look wicked. It's like a nuclear bomb fused the two together into a bastard child bridge. Yeah, we need a photo from an above angle to solve this quandary. .:davumaya:. 21:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get photos on opening day, Thursday. In response to an earlier query: The pier in the foreground of several photos was part of the old 10th Street bridge. That's 10th Street from downtown Minneapolis. I think I added info about it to the "green steel" photo in the old bridge's article. I might have an old photo of that bridge, but I probably added it to the St. Anthony Falls article. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lonely pier was part of the old 10th Avenue South bridge which used to connect to 6th Avenue Southeast (For those confused readers: The extant bridge closest to the new bridge is 10th Avenue Southeast which connects to 19th Avenue South). Oh, and please pay no attention to an actual compass. These suffixes have nothing to do with actual directions.--Appraiser (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I found a nice Creative Commons set of pictures taken on June 28, 2008 if someone wants to add some detailed free use pictures of the construction.[3] Royalbroil 19:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be from Wikipedian Mulad. Kablammo (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Freeway approaches"?

[edit]

This article says:

however freeway approaches may not be ready as soon as the bridge is

What does the phrase "freeway approaches" mean? Does it mean entrance and exit ramps? If so, what reason is there to think they won't be ready? I've seen them within the last 48 hours and I saw no reason to think they're not ready. Michael Hardy (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could be old info or just somebody's guesswork. The MNDOT site would obviously be the authority in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think they're done now. For a long time the freeways on both sides of the bridge were incomplete.--Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think much of the construction section could now be removed (or removed once the bridge is open); we won't need a blow-by=blow description of progress. A mention that it opened x days ahead of the contract deadline, and that the contractor earned $y in incentives, would be suffficient.
The list of bidders and other detail in the project management section probably could go also. Kablammo (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. The bridge is technologically advanced, with multiple sensors and monitored performance criteria. These items could be written about.--Appraiser (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see a reply about "freeway approaches". That refers to all of the roadway which connects the ends of the actual bridge (mostly between those two columns) to the rest of I-35W. Basically there are several hundred feet of viaduct/bridge on each side which connect to the rest of the highway. The old approaches were demolished early in the process, leaving concrete highway connected to gravel roads at the top of the river's slope. There is new concrete a significant fraction of a mile in both directions now, with various guardrails and fixtures being completed. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next week

[edit]

Heard on WCCO-AM today that MNDOT says the bridge should open next week. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; there will be a press conference on Monday at 11:00 to announce the date, which could be as early as Tuesday.--Appraiser (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wings"

[edit]
"Ask Steve Lohr at America's newspaper, I think he'll know." -SusanLesch (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm no engineer, so I may be way off base here - but the "wings" on either side of the tops of the supporting pillars look to me like the "weakest link" in this bridge's construction. [4] In effect, they could become the "gusset plates" of this bridge. I'd like to hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, and maybe put my mind at ease on this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the company has referred to these as "ears" that are there only for esthetic reasons. Your hypothesis seems implausible, since these are merely added on rather than actually supporting anything. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they're basically decorations. I hope you're right. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably somewhat more than decorations. Ship designers found out some time ago, later followed by aircraft designers, that square corners become stress points. Those rounded transitions might be easing the stress on the central load pillar. But that's just general engineering knowledge; we don't know exactly what the engineers tested, and whatever they publicly state is at least the lower limits of the structure. It might not be good business to say the ears will last for 200 years and have them fall off after only 150 years...even if the ears falling off does not affect the bridge. I'm sure the documentation tells maintenance engineers how much of the ears can be removed, although I wouldn't be surprised if there is some minimal structural benefit to having them present. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Min-DOT photo page [5] says "The Pier extensions protect the bridge bearings and add to the aesthetic appeal of the structure." I'll take their word for it. They haven't been wrong before. :) Although your comments do remind me of a line from Dilbert: "The goal of every engineer is to retire without having caused a major catastrophe." For example, most of the engineers of the 1967 bridge were probably at least retired and very possibly deceased by 8/1/07. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I got a close look at them, yup, they're protective and cosmetic. I think one of the pier photos during construction shows the enclosed columns. -- SEWilco (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source

[edit]

MPR article on some of the technology. And MPR sources will not disappear. Kablammo (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MinnPost article that might also not disappear. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open

[edit]

The bridge is open... someone want to find the news banner and replace the construction banner with that for a day or two? Some editing may happen during the day as people find details from the day's news reports. I'll get photos of the bridge this afternoon when the light is right. -- SEWilco (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A photo from the 10th Avenue bridge, showing cars streaming across the new bridge, and juxtaposed with the collapsed bridge photo, i.e. a "before and after", would be nice. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I drove across it this morning - it seems to work fine :)--Appraiser (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be selling T-shirts: "I survived the new bridge." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would but there's no adequate place to sell them. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that I got a much better whole-bridge photo a few minutes ago. I won't be near a suitable interface until later today. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, an image which shows the structure without the confusion of the adjoining bridge. There will be better camera angles soon, when the construction zones are reopened to the public. But had to get some on opening day. -- SEWilco (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge traffic was fairly light this evening. The novelty wears off quickly, I guess. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have monitors of several characteristics. Is any image expert reading this... is that night photo of the opening dark enough that it should be tinkered with? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, and it is a bit dark, but when you bring it to full size you can read the signs and make out other details. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Corridor

[edit]

Someone removed the bit about the Central Corridor Light Rail crossing the bridge with the edit summary of "another route was chosen." I don't believe that's true; as far as I know there are no plans for light rail to cross the river, which would incline me to put the line back in this article. When rail does cross the river, this bridge is certainly a contender for the route. Anyone have information to the contrary?--Appraiser (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge was designed light-rail-ready, right? And the comment "another route was chosen" was uncited. So it seems like you could put it back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Minn-DOT page still states "Light Rail Transport-ready which may help accommodate future transportation needs", and presumably they know what they're talking about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Central Corridor is now set to cross the river at the Washington Avenue Bridge.[6] If it crosses there it will not take the 35W bridge. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might still be able to use the I-35W corridor if they extend the light rail northward. Now let's just hope the Washington bridge doesn't collapse from the extra weight, eh? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old railroad bridge between Washington Avenue and 3rd; one would think that something that held trains could hold light rail vehicles. The U wanted the line to go north of campus, but caved in in the face of opposition from the Met Council and others. Now there will be a "transit mall' on Washington Avenue (I think that is another term for "gridlock"-- but that might be a POV). Kablammo (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I thought I had heard that the Washington Ave. bridge wasn't adequate, but I must be mistaken. In light of that, any future use of the St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge for rail would not be a part of the Central Corridor Line. Thanks again.--Appraiser (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the primary source for the transit mall approval. [7] Our n'hood meetings have also confirmed that the transit mall and Washington alignment is for sure as the engineers have specifically been getting input from us. .:davumaya:. 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it does not address what bridge would be used wheres this one does. Thanks though.--Appraiser (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What should be mentioned is that future rail needs were considered during the process and summarize whatever is relevant to this bridge. Not mentioning the rail issues omits an issue which was briefly and hotly discussed (there was heat in public, although I don't know if it was trivial for the engineers), and future readers will need that info during future transportation research. It's possible that the actual design of this bridge was not much affected; I have reason to suspect that all that was required was that this bridge not conflict with a path to a separate rail bridge. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe we should restore the paragraph, but omit the "Central Corridor" part, since it might be the "NE corridor" or something, 10 years hence. I did hear that making it "light-rail-ready" added $30 million, I think. So maybe not entirely trivial.--Appraiser (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in St._Anthony_Falls_(35W)_Bridge#Debate_over_the_design. Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be mentioned, and in effect the Min-DOT page is kind of weaselly, saying "it may be used". And if there's already a mention of it, that should be good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization

[edit]

The article jumps around. It might be better to handle things chronologicially, from planning and funding to construction to opening, and put the deisgn and technology features in one place, probably at the end. The section on possible delays of other projects is a year old-- if it actually did, we need a current reference; if we can't find a reference, the section probably should go. Kablammo (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the last-mentioned section as it was speculation (albeit perhaps well-informed) from a year ago, and seemed outdated. If in fact other projects were delayed then that can and should be mentioned. The fuel tax increase may also come into play. Kablammo (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there a possibility that the reality of worn-out infrastructure gave the legislature courage to raise the fuel tax?--Appraiser (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of them to override a veto! Kablammo (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But it probably belongs in I-35W Mississippi River bridge.--Appraiser (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article could mention something about earmarks. That seems to be equated with government waste, yet this bridge was built with an "earmark" garnering wide support.--Appraiser (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Certainly the failure was a factor both in state legislation and national efforts, by Oberstar and others, to more fully fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement, as well as the majority federal funding of the replacement spans. Kablammo (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some to both articles. Take a look.--Appraiser (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the sources, but they look good. Kablammo (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting

[edit]

In the Wikinews article, I had put in "blue LEDs" and someone changed it to "white LEDs". I don't really know, but the Strib article[8] described cars being bathed in blue light. It is possible to achieve close to white light by combining blue, green, and red LEDs and I don't know if that was done or not. But to me, if something "looks" blue, it is blue.--Appraiser (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me they look blue. A better question is, what is their purpose? How many millions did those cute decorations cost? The only purpose I can think of is a subliminal message: "Last chance to turn back!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose? Decorations? I think you're referring to the wavy sculptures on each end of the bridge. The original seems to be referring to the LEDs which are illuminating the bridge's street surface. Although I know that the LED technology is probably producing a bluish light, these are commonly called "white LEDs" and the illumination on the bridge looks white to me. In the opening night photo it's hard to see the color change on the road due to the car lights, but on the left you can see a white streetlight behind one of the approaches' yellowish lights, and all the streetlights in the center of the bridge are the white LED type. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blue lights are the ones under the roadway; not the ones that illuminate the roadway. You can't see the blue lights while driving on the bridge; you can see them only when looking at the bridge from other locations. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I propose to change the name of the article to I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge, for two reasons: (1) The name comes from an authoritative and current source, namely, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, as opposed to an old story from a media outlet. (2) There is no such road as "35W"; it's "I-35W." --Matjamoe (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objection, I'm going to make the move.St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge → I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge -Matjamoe (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw in photograph

[edit]

In this photograph, in the foreground, only a few feet from the camera, there are wooden structures—the hand-rails of a wooden staircase leading down the steep riverbank. The quick casual viewer, not consciously attending to such details, may fail to notice that those are not part of the bridge and will then have a confused and false mental image. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus illustrating that with wikipedia's demand for free photos, you get what you pay for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-860409~House_panel_approves_bill_to_provide__250_million_for_bridge.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus?

[edit]

What did the bonus for Flatiron-Manson Construction turn out to be? It's been over 8 years, so I figure someone oughta know by now. - Denimadept (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I-35W Saint Anthony Falls 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) 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I-35W Saint Anthony Falls 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) 22:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I-35W_Saint_Anthony_Falls_Bridge&oldid=1257983429"