Talk:Suspended bridge deck

Verifiability

I question the verifiability of this term. I have been unable to locate a bridge engineering reliable source that says that this is a valid type of bridge. I am tagging the article for {{Verifiability}} and as {{Unreferenced}} until this can be resolved.
Please remember that the design, construction, operation and maintenance of bridges is a technical and professional subject which has had peer-reviewed papers and textbooks published for more than one hundred years. Under Wikipedia:Policy, we should be able to locate a source of high reliability to document that this is a valid type or classification of bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page, just a link to other pages. The references should be on each article's main page. Not this one. Someone has added pictures and almost turned it into a pseudo article. I will sort it out in a little while.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Until the references are found and placed on any page within Wikipedia, this term is unverified. The tags are appropriate and restored. Please find a reference before removing them. You should not have removed the tags by just assuming that the references existed on other pages. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter. Disambiguation pages are not article pages. They are special pages within WP to assist users to find the articles they want, even if the name of the page is not 100% correct. It is unusual to have references on a disambiguation page. They are just designed to be a quick linking tool, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation for standard format.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note from the history that this page was created by moving the page content "to Suspension bridge: Per discussion on talk page, returning to original location", leaving this page as a redirect as per standard WP practice - since them it has become a disambiguation page.

Plus if you want verification that the term "Suspended deck bridge" is actually used then [1] is a non-wikipedia page that uses the terminology. Therefore a disambiguation page of that name is of use to WP users.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Sources in more detail. Would you accept www.explainthatstuff.com as a reliable source above (1) peer-reviewed journals or (2) textbooks published by university presses? (None of which say that this is a valid bridge type or category.) Would you use it as a source to write a peer-reviewed paper that says suspended deck bridges are a type or category of bridge? All I am asking for is a high-quality reliable source that substantiates this term. I am not convinced that this site meets those standards. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still only a disambiguation page. References are not normal for a disambiguation page. If you look hard enough you will find hundreds of such pages (and re-direct pages) that do not not have what one might call a "correct" title - for example, I know there are a huge number of redirect biology pages which are just mis-spellings of the real article, knowing that the general public might not spell the name correctly. That's the whole point of these pages, it's to direct the user to an article of the correct name. I'm not saying that reference is a perfect source - but a person might read that, and want more information and will then use that data as a search in WP. If there is no disambiguation page how will (s)he ever find it? That reference is still a valid link as it's not a mirror of WP data, it's not a "personal" web site, and doesn't come under any of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID has to do with links posted in the "external links" section. I am not certain what that has to do with a reliable source. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The rewrite done by Sam now gives information to readers (and future editors) that this term has not been verified as being in use by bridge engineers. Hopefully, the term will not creep back into articles. Thanks Sam for creating this compromise. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Is HowStuffWorks.com a Reliable Source?

The web page www.explainthatstuff.com/bridges was provided above as a source for the term "suspended deck bridge".

1. The page does identify its author here as Chris Woodford. He is described there as a "British science writer" who has "written lots of books on science and technology". He does not demonstrate any expertise in bridges, but he is published.
2. His published books are technology based and targeted to kids 10 and up (based information at amazon.com). Maybe that is a plus. However, this also means that his books are not meant to be "authoritative" in any field of technology.
3. The site index uses color codes to outline the level of detail provided in each article/webpage. The bridge page is coded as green, or "A short, simple introduction, particularly suitable Younger." So it does not try to give definitive definitions or explanations of bridge terms.
4. The website does not seem to be associated with any other organization (science association, school or university, publishing house, etc.). This raises the question if it is "self-published" material. Under the self-published sources policy of Wikipedia, it says "caution should be exercised when using such sources". The reliable sources guidline says "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". There is not any information on the HowStuffWorks.com website to demonstrate that it uses a "reliable publication process".
5. The actual quote that is being used as a reference is: A steel-arch bridge "is also known as a compression arch suspended-deck bridge or through-arch bridge." The term "compression arch suspended-deck bridge" comes directly from Wikipedia and is under question also. Please see Talk:Compression arch suspended-deck bridge.

WP:Sources says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." They are available for the subject of bridges. We should be looking for that quality source. In summary, I would say that HowStuffWorks.com does not meet the level of reliability needed to provide a definition for and validation of this term. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A moment's investigation is needed to see that Chris Woodward's books are not "self-published" (http://us.dk.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780756632076,00.html). In your eagerness to dismiss any facts contrary to your preconceived notions, you're overlooking a lot. Tedickey (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I said that his books were published in bullet 2. However, that does mean that his website is not "self-published". These are two distinct items with two distinct histories. Are you saying that an author that publishes books for kids is a good enough source to verify this term? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How does a reader know this is a disambiguation page?

As discussed in talk sections above, this page within Wikipedia is only being held to the editing guideline of WP:DAB. How does a reader know this? This is a very technical topic. Does a reader have the expectation that the definition given on this page is accurate? I struggle here because (as of July 2015), there is no verifiable definition given in WP for "suspended bridge deck". This page links to two DAB articles, but neither truly (and verifiably) defines the term. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Still seeking a reference for this term

WP:Sources says "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Here are academic sources (whole books about bridge decks) that don't define or use the term "suspended bridge deck" Bridge Deck Behaviour, Second Edition, by E C Hambly and Bridge Deck Analysis, Second Edition by Obrien, Keogh, O'Connor. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)