User Talk: Murgatroyd49

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d)
| archive = User talk:Murgatroyd49/Archives/%(year)d
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 2
}}
{{Archives|2025 ↗, 2026 ↗}}

Confusion about high vs tall bridges on the Millau Viaduct ↗ page

You reverted my edit to the Millau Viaduct ↗ article that corrected the "Construction records" subsection. What I corrected, and you reverted to, is confusing and factually wrong.

The article states the Millau Viaduct has "the highest road bridge deck in Europe, {{convert|270|m|ft}} above the Tarn ↗ at its highest point; it is nearly twice as tall as the previous tallest vehicular bridges in Europe, the Europabrücke ↗ in Austria ↗ and the Italia Viaduct ↗ in Italy ↗". But by deck height, which is what the first sentence refers to and what Wikipedia considers when talking about how high bridges are (for instance in the List of highest bridges ↗), the Millau viaduct (270 m high) overtook the Italia viaduct (260 m high) by 10 meters only, according to the figures on the relevant Wikipedia articles; the Europabrücke (190 m) had not been the highest in Europe since the Sfalassà Viaduct ↗ (254 m) and Italia viaduct overtook it in 1974, and I wouldn't be surprised if other bridges higher than the Europabrücke had been built in Europe by 2004. If we read the second sentence in isolation and consider instead structural height, which is what is referred to in Wikipedia by talking about how tall bridges are (for instance in the List of tallest bridges ↗), then indeed the Millau viaduct (343 m tall) is almost twice as tall as the Europabrücke ↗ (190 m), per Wikipedia, but then the deck height above the river Tarn is irrelevant, and the Italia viaduct (144 m) was already not the tallest bridge in Europe when the Millau viaduct was built, having been overtaken by the Europabrücke, the Storebæltsbroen ↗ (254 m), the Queensferry Crossing ↗ (207 m) and possibly many more bridges.

I created a topic about this on Talk:Millau Viaduct ↗ years ago, let the wrong version stand until this month. No one replied. I then finally decided to correct it to what's factually accurate per other Wikipedia pages. You immediately reverted the edit without comment. Please explain why the wrong version should stand, or stand aside and let me correct the article without reverting my edit. Thank you. Mariupolo (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} Height normally refers to "above sea level" - how tall something is, is generally defined as "from bottom to top". Not sure I can contribute much else to the discussion, though! ''Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me.'' 11:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, tall means top to bottom. The confusion regards what is the top and what is the bottom being considered. Usually, for bridges, in English, tall refers to structural height, so from the bottom of the above-ground bridge structure to its top. It usually doesn't refer to deck height, measured from to road/rail deck (top) to the lowest ground (or water) below. But the bigger problem here is that the second sentence is wrong no matter what definition of "tall" you take. If it is deck height, as the first sentence suggests, then it is not twice as tall as the previous tallest, and the Europabrücke does not merit a mention. If it is structural height, then the first sentence mentioning the height above the river is irrelevant, and the Italia viaduct deserves no mention. Mariupolo (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'll add that "high" referring to height above sea level (or another datum) and not structural or deck height would be extremely unusual in the context of bridges, and in contrast with pretty much any mention of high or height on Wikipedia articles about bridges. But if you want to use "tall", or always specify what kind of height it is, fine; the main problem is the inconsistency and factual inaccuracy, not the choice of word per se. Mariupolo (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:Very simple, you didn't provide a source for your claim . Also there is still confusion, as Mattdaviesfsic points out, between "height" and "tall". Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::Are you serious? I have to provide a source to correct a passage that itself is unsourced and contradicts itself and what other Wikipedia pages state?
::Also, there is very little confusion in the context of bridges on Wikipedia... except on that article. Wikipedia consistently uses "high" to refer to deck height and "tall" to refer to structural height. It never refers to height above sea level, unless otherwise specified.
::So, how do you propose we correct the article, if you don't like what I wrote? The current version is plainly wrong, in a self-contradicting way. Mariupolo (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::So you claim but without supplying a source. I have removed the whole section, it has been unsourced for 9 years and the only attempts at references is to a WP:UGC ↗ wiki.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I have no objections to removing the entire section since it is not properly sourced. But this means that at the moment, as of your deletion, the entire article does not state anywhere that its subject is the highest bridge in Europe (in terms of deck height) and was the (edit: second-)highest bridge in the world when it was built. We should discuss how to add this information back with proper sources. If user-generated content does not count at all, then the source for the structural height in the opening paragraph of the article (the website Structurae) is also not good, right? Or is Structurae fine because it has some degree of authority and editorial oversight? A bunch of articles discussing built structures may have to be rewritten.
::::Anyway, could please continue this discussion in the talk page of the article (and other relevant articles, possibly)? That way other editors can also see what's going on. Thanks. Mariupolo (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Temp editor

The temporary account you just reverted at British Airtours ↗ (thanks for that) has made a large number of problematic edits including uncited date changes. I have reverted a few, but if you have time maybe you want to take a look? {{User|~2026-37024-49}}. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:Will have a look Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:Also, perhaps you could offer an additional opinion at Talk:Delta Air Lines fleet#Image gallery ↗ 10mmsocket (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)