This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
Some reference sites
[edit]Just ran across this list here: http://www.siue.edu/CCRU/websites.htm
- http://www.bizave.com/portland/bridges
- http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/bridge/CB1.html
- http://www.howstuffworks.com/bridge.htm
- http://pghbridges.com
- http://www.virtualvermont.com/coveredbridge
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge/build.html
- http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/calbridges.htm
- http://www.mnhs.org/places/nationalregister/bridges/bridges.html
- http://www.icomos.org/studies/bridges.htm
Boring test tunnel listed at Requested moves
[edit]
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boring test tunnel to be moved to Hawthorne test tunnel. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Requested move at Talk:Boring test tunnel#Requested move 23 August 2025
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boring test tunnel#Requested move 23 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Request for input re "Risk of too many images" warning
[edit]There is a discussion at Talk:Bridge#Proposal_to_remove_"Risk_of_too_many_images"_warning proposing to remove a warning template from the Bridge article. That discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Noleander (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Greenville Bridge
[edit]Greenville Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)