Talk:Bigsweir Bridge

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page name

I've moved the article from Bigsweir to Bigsweir Bridge. There was only the nearby (unrelated?) railway station mentioned apart from the bridge, and the article was only in bridge categories. It seemed an obvious, unambiguous page name move. The bridge seems to be the prime attraction, being Grade II* listed. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about expanding the "Upper Bigsweir" river section a bit, which gets many mentions re salmon fishing: [1] and Bigsweir House: [2]. As in the British History source, there seems to be quite a history attached to the Bigsweir Estate, apart from the bridge. We also have Bigsweir Woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, then the bridge is the obvious main topic of the article as it stands. If someone has anything to add on Bigsweir, then they can expand at that title and convert the redirect to a page. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There is certainly no village there, but there is Bigsweir House (grade II), the nearby weir itself, the tollhouse, and Bigsweir Woods. When I first wrote the article I certainly considered naming it after the bridge, but came to the view that there was enough else of interest in the locality that it would be better to name the article simply Bigsweir. There are enough sources to expand the article (eg here) - or indeed even perhaps to have one on the bridge as an engineering structure, etc., with tollhouse, and a separate one on the locality as a whole (including the weir, house, woods, and station). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The tollhouse is still mentioned (I haven't amended or expanded the wording). Presumably it has a direct connection in all senses to the bridge crossing. I guess as a Grade II* listed ruin it could even have it's own article (or at least its own redirect). Whether these other nearby buildings and localities are named after the weir or the bridge I don't know. Can you invent a locality based on a number of nearby things with the same name? Sionk (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The History Online source says "In 1827 the Crown sold its rights in Hudnalls, Mocking Hazel wood, and the Fence to the owner of the Bigsweir estate ... " suggesting that the estate was there before the bridge. I guess there is a separate history for the weir which pre-dates the bridge. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (based on what I remember reading) is that the house and estate are named after the weir - which is almost 1km downstream of the bridge - and the bridge took its name from the estate where it was located. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more referenced material to the article, about the weir, estate, and Bigsweir House (a mere grade II listing, so probably not worth its own article). What do others think? Should the article revert to its old name, or be split into a Bigsweir article and a Bigsweir Bridge article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing

Just by way of a, not very important, query, I wonder why the listing date in the article's BLBO source is given as 1988, when BLBO now [3], and Cadw [4] both give 2001. Surely not another two ends of the same bridge issue? Also, why does Cadw still say its also a Scheduled Monument, when RCAHMW [5] says it's been delisted? And why was it de-listed? KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answers to those questions, though the bridge does straddle the Gloucestershire-Monmouthshire border. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toll house listing

The Beacon article, and others, describe the toll house as Grade II listed. However, it doesn’t appear to be so, according to the Cadw search facility. Not sure how to reflect this. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. It doesn't appear to be listed as part of the bridge structure (here) - which states that "The tollhouse abuts the north west side of the causeway, but this has been altered." - and though it's included on the RCAHMW site (here) that doesn't say it's listed either. The newspaper may have made an error, but it could be checked with the Monmouthshire CC officers, or with Cadw. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the listing report makes it clear whether the tollhouse is included or excluded. I personally interpreted it as being part of the overall Grade II* listing simply because it gets a mention in the exterior description, but the separate Coflein entry could mean Ghmyrtle's right. There are no separate results on Archwilio, so it looks extremely unlikely there's a different listing – I think it depends on whether it's considered an element of the bridge. Jr8825 • Talk 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the bridge is Grade II*, but the newspaper reports suggest the toll house is Grade II. Although they frequently copy each other, and with all due respect to the Beacon and the South Wales Argus, their journos don't always appreciate the difference. I might ask User:Charles.rcahmw. KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]