Talk:Washington Bridge (Connecticut)

Notability

This is one ordinary bridge, a couple hundred feet long, just like thousands of other bridges in the United States. WP doesn't need this kind of trivia. Put it on a site for bridge fanatics.

Markvs> There are hundreds of ordinary bridges on Wikipedia. It's no more trivial than anything else. That it is a working example of an acclaimed engineer would be enough to make it notable. That it is on a major roadway and that it is of an unusal type makes it more so. That is has been on the National Register of Historic Places in Connecticut since 29 September 2004? I'm not a bridge fanatic, but this isn't something trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial to anyone who knows better. US 1 between Stratford and Milford is an ordinary city street, not a "major roadway." There are tens of thousands of bridges just like this one in the US. The fact that my tax dollars were used to have it listed on the National Register is galling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.156.95 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Markvs> And you know better, right? US 1 runs the entire eastern seaboard, and was the only such road to do so for MANY DECADES, including well into the Boomer Generation's lifetime! Simply put, it IS a major road -- it's just not an interstate highway. There are *not* tens of thousands just like this one, there are perhaps a dozen at best. Likewise, your tax dollars and mine are wasted on many more trivial things than the National Register. I'm not here to fight with you or anyone, but IMO this is not a "trivial piece of history", if there are any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My, my, aren't we touchy! I've obviously hit some emotional nerve because considering some aging few-hundred-foot bridge to be a major part of American history is totally irrational. You really need to get out more and see the USA. That would certainly temper the distorted sense of importance you attach to this piddly bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.156.92 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Markvs> Touchy? Not at all. Feel free to reread your posts above and think if you didnt come off as touchy. lol! BTW, I've been to 26 states and 11 countries. And I never said "major", only said it's not "a trivial part" of. IMO, it's no more or less important than any other significant work... Or do you rate everything da Vinci painted that's not the Mona Lisa as trivial? Now, if this was an article about (say) a parking lot, I could understand why you're actually bothering with "this piddly bridge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been to 45 states and 10 countries, and have lived in a dozen communities from coast to coast. But you miss the point completely if you think it's a competition about travel. It's about objectivity. Anyone who can write with such excruciating detail about every road in Stratford and every shelter in every park obviously doesn't have a great deal of objectivity or perspective on the area. No one except you cares about how many grills there are at Long Beach (yawn). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Chamber of Commerce brochure. Take a look at some of the articles on other cities. You'll see that the level of minutiae in the Stratford article only demonstrates how incredibly podunk the town really is, or at least the people writing the WP article on it. Please put your obsessive-compulsive disorder to work on something worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.131.222 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Markvs> You seem to be taking this very personally, as if you have some tie to Stratford. You're perfectly well entitled to your opinions, though why you feel a need to vent them here is beyond me. You're also the first person I've ever heard of to complain about someone documenting something knowledgeably. In any event, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Bridges Importance Rating

Set to "high" because of historicity of route and notability of engineer. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hatnote formatting

User:Markvs88 has just reverted a correction of formatting of hatnote disambiguation at the top of this article, by this edit. Can someone else comment, and/or explain to Marksv88 what is usual formatting for such disambiguation at the top of an article. It is usual for it to be italicized. It is usual for it to be indented. It is usual to link to "Name (disambiguation)" rather than to "Name" when "Name" is a disambiguation page (i think the relevant guideline about the latter point is wp:INTDABLINK, altho i am not checking now). Or, Marksv88, could you please look up the relevant guidelines and restore the correct formatting, yourself? Given dispute about an unrelated matter at Talk:Housatonic River Railroad Bridge that is verging on wp:POINTY and disruptive/unreasonable, i don't want to discuss this minor matter further here, myself. Please, anyone, help. --doncram (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Or you can explain what that all has to do about changing "and" back to "or". If you're referring to the removal of "(disambiguation)" after Devon Bridge, you might be keen to note that the Devon Bridge page does not say Devon Bridge (disambiguation). Unlike the Washington Bridge (disambiguation) page. Markvs88 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupid hatnote editing resumes, with repeated edits asserting "Devon Bridge" redirects here. It does, temporaritly, until i restore the Devon Bridge disambiguation page. I asked Polaron just now at his Talk page to open an AFD about the Devon Bridge dab page if he wishes, towards obtaining a consensus of editors. It's not right to just make changes in wikipedia based on no sources, or contrary to sources provided (e.g. that there are 2 places in the US named Devon Bridge). And since there are other Devon Bridges in Devon, England, it is stupid to try to eliminate that dab page. What a waste of time, another edit war over non-sourced nonsense. Great.

Anyhow, the hatnotes for this page need to be fixed again and again, or to be revisited after thaat stupic edit war gets settled. --doncram (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

? I have nothing to do with whatever Poloran did, and I consider the subject of the disputed point on the two RR bridges settled per the wording agreement we made. If you want to restore the disambig page to what it was, I have no complaints. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't mean to imply it was you. I also perceive this as Polaron butting in, in a way that would unravel an agreement that had settled things. Marcvs88, it would be a help if you would restore the dab page. This is now at wp:3RRNB and an uninformed-about-past-history administrator is riding it and implying he would block me if i restore it. Orlady, more informed, is also involved there and has commented at Polaron's talk page. The obvious thing is to restore the dab page and then have any more necessary discussion about its existence at its Talk page (or at an AFD if Polaron has the guts to open one, which will surely fail). -doncram (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again with the AFD. Nobody wants it deleted. Among the existing articles that can be plausibly named "Devon Bridge", the most significant usage is this one. Is that incorrect? If so, show it. Otherwise, a redirect should be in place. --Polaron | Talk 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, converting a 2-item dab page to a redirect to the more siginificant use plus a hatnote to the secondary use has nothing to do with sources. No one is claiming there is only one bridge by this name. Create more articles then restore the dab page. Your solution is simple. --Polaron | Talk 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram- Ah, that makes more sense, thanks. However, IMO Poloran is correct on at least one aspect -- no one/entity except the NRHP paperwork refers to that bridge as the Devon Bridge, including the Metro-North conductors I talk/hear on the train. (I know that is not authoritative/verifiable, but still. After riding on the trains for years, I've heard them or their radios say "crossing Housatonic in X (minutes) enough to know.) Please see "Third Way" below. Markvs88 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for below, to which i have now replied. This is no longer a big deal, i hope, but you can't show any source attesting that Devon Bridge is not a name for the railroad bridge, and you can't know that "no one" has referred to it as that, that it has not been a common name. I happen to accept the NRHP nomination document as authoritative. And it cites 2 railroad-focussed sources, previously discussed, which no one has collected and which I believe likely do give the Devon Bridge name. But this side discussion about remaining doubts you might have is moot; we don't need to come to further agreement about this. The article is stable now with language acceptable to everyone, knock on wood (besides the hatnotes which are now wrong again, for not linking to Devon Bridge dab). --doncram (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Third Way

The Devon Bridge name is a secondary name for the George Washington, so I don't think that a redirect is in order. Likewise, the Devon Bridge is a secondary name for the Housatonic RR Bridge (at least according to the NRHP). However, as there are other Devon Bridges out there (England & Alaska have been mentioned I believe. There also seems to be one in Alberta, Canada [[1]]). So what I propose is that the disambiguation page remain/be restored with links to other Devon Bridges as well. There are many Disambig pages out there with red links (if the other Devon bridge pages do not yet exist). I'd also like to see the Housatonic RR Bridge linked on the Disambig page, (but with a notation) that it's called the Devon Bridge by the NRHP, as it is in the article. Not exactly what either of you want, but I think it's the most sensible way out since odds are that another Devon Bridge article will get written about one of the other bridges is pretty high. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As i noted at the 3RRNB, Polaron has now acknowledged one of the other Devon bridges is notable, and i restored the dab page at Devon Bridge now also with a redlink entry for that one. Hopefully that ends it (though we have yet to see if Polaron misunderstands MOS:DABRL policy and wishes to engage in more shenanigans). Thanks, M, for your attempting to form a solution. Could you re-fix the hatnotes for this article? Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've created a third article, which should settle things. The hatnote has been removed per WP:NAMB. The current title is already disambiguated and there are no incoming redirects from unambiguous names. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington Bridge (Connecticut). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080526134915/http://www.connpost.com:80/milford/ci_5139566 to http://www.connpost.com/milford/ci_5139566

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)