Talk:Multi-way bridge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Only 27?

The lede states, "Three-way bridges are located throughout the world, though they are extremely rare, with just 27 known to exist." Firstly, the number is not referenced. Secondly, I've personally encountered many pedestrian overpasses with a central tap over roads and railway station platforms. Even a pedway with 3 exits falls under the definition. Unless the definition is made stricter (with reference), I find this claim highly dubious. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges such as these, where the third arm connects at the center of the bridge, are extremely rare. This source claims to have identified 25 of them, and this source discusses how rare they are. Again, the definition identifies that all three spans meet near the center of the bridge. If you could edit the article so as to removed the tag, or include the examples of the three-way bridges you have encountered, it would certainly improve the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By this definition, we disqualify a number of bridges in the list. The Y-Bridge (Galena, Missouri) certainly doesn't qualify, for example. Also, the Jiaozhou Bay Bridge. And the John B. Whealton Memorial Causeway. - Denimadept (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Y-Bridge in Galena, Missouri definitely falls under this definition. The other two were deleted weeks ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vague specification

The lead should be rewrit to include a plausible definition! Presumably the word "point" was introduced in an qeffort to rule out the Triboro, which i've never studied but my gut tells me must visibly divisable into three to six 1- or 2- way bridges. "Point" applies only to such a small extent that "zone" would be far better inspite of needing a substantial supporting cast yet to be named! OK, Now i've usedtwo excl points in 1 graph, and it's time for cooler heads to speak up. But where ARE they?
--Jerzy•t 02:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Triboro bridge is multiple bridges. That's not what a three-way bridge is. - Denimadept (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to rename article?

While most of the bridges listed in this article have three entrances, a few have four or more entrances. An editor has recently started deleted deleting these bridges with more than three entrances, because they do not meet the strict definition of the article's title.

These multi-entrance bridges are extremely rare, and this is the only Wikipedia article about this topic. It seems sensible to included all bridges with three or more entrances into the same article, instead of having separate articles for three entrance bridges, four entrance bridges, and the single five entrance bridge.

A few solutions to the outright deletion of entries of bridges with more than three entrances are:

Rename the article.
Leave the article name as it is, and expand the lead to let readers know that a few bridges in the list have more than three entrances (similar to how it currently reads).
Leave the article as it is and let readers figure it out. There have been no comments about the few bridges with more than three entrances since the article was created over three years ago.

The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is three-way bridges. Not multi-way bridges. If you want to change that, you need to discuss it rather than unilaterally change it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of petty to revert my edit over semantics. Not sure how the readers of Wikipedia will benefit from the premature butcher job, prior to any discussion. Perhaps you can tell me? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: It's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of intent. If you want to include structures which don't belong, that's on you. IIRC, this discussion has happened before. See this talk page. But that's not necessary. You and I have had this discussion before here on this talk page. We're about the only ones who seem to care.

Look, if you want to include more kinds of multi-way bridges, we can probably handle that. I suggest a section for more-than-three-way bridges. We can have a section for three-way, a section for four-way, a section for whatever-way. But let's not mix them, hm? Multiple sections, each with its own table and set of structures. And let's keep the discussion here. What would you propose as a new name for this article? - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: How's this? - Denimadept (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

I remember there was a three-way bridge over the Lehigh River in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, now gone. Perhaps someone could confirm my memory.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]