Talk:Housatonic River Railroad Bridge

This is NOT the Devon Bridge

The Devon Bridge is the Washington Bridge (Connecticut). See: [[1]]. Locals refer to the Devon Bridge all the time. I've never heard of anyone driving over a railroad bridge in a Dodge though. Markvs88 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Artistic rendering of the Devon Bridge. Notice it's the Washington, not a RR bridge. [[2]]. Markvs88 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I-95 traffic rerouted over the Devon Bridge. [[3]] Markvs88 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I put the mention of the Devon Bridge into this article based on the reference which i included in the article. It's a sourced contribution. I'm sure there are many bridges in the world called Devon Bridge, so mentioning that another bridge has that name doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. Looking at the reference in the article, do you see something wrong with the reference? If you want to argue that the reference is wrong, or that i misinterpreted it, please go ahead. I didn't consult it again now but i believe that so far you have not looked at it. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is sourced but here's the problem: we can't have two Devon Bridges right next to each other, especially when no one refers to the rail bridge at all. IMO, the person who filled out the form for the "HOUSATONIC RIVER RAILROAD BRIDGE" NPS was incorrect or confused and that the error has been repeated from any source that uses the NPS document. I don't know if you're a local, but if people ever refer to the railroad bridge, that's what they call it: "The Railroad Bridge". I've never heard of anyone refering to it as the Devon bridge, but I've read/heard many time about construction/traffic on the Devon bridge. Markvs88 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you that in your local circle of car-driving acquaintances in 2010, that when you say "Devon Bridge" you mean some other bridge to Devon. And that usage is broader, too, that newspaper coverage of the road bridge is referring to it as Devon Bridge. I am not surprised that more than one bridge to Devon might originally have had, or eventually acquire, the name Devon Bridge, as the short way to say the bridge to Devon. You point out that your acquaintances call it "The Railroad Bridge" which almost certainly is not its official name, not what the railroad company would ever have called it. It seems quite reasonable, on the other hand, that the railroad company in 1905 and afterwards called it the Devon Bridge, as it was their bridge to or at Devon. And that is a sourced name for the bridge, while you are not going to be able to provide a source that states specifically that Devon Bridge is not an official/old/other name for the railroad bridge. So, I think the Devon Bridge name should pretty clearly stay in. And by reading this Wikipedia article, you have learned something, and your acquaintances will too! :) Seriously, both bridges could probably be mentioned in a Devon Bridge disambiguation page that i will start, as long as both articles show/explain that Devon Bridge is an alternative name for the given bridge. --doncram (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The State of CT calls the Washington Bridge "aka The Devon Bridge" in the minutes I provided above and as reference #4 in the Washington Bridge article. If you want more, I'm happy to oblige: Connecticut Post: [[4]] (please see page 2), WPLR: [[5]] (man causes huge accident on Devon bridge. As for the name of the RR bridge, if you really want this to stand, I request you cite any document from 1905-1987 that states it being the Devon bridge to prove it's the case. Markvs88 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, i don't have to prove anything here, really. But to humor you, sure, here's a document from 1905-1987 that does that: Anne Baggerman (August 11, 1977). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Housatonic River Railroad Bridge / Devon Bridge". National Park Service. If for any reason you want to dismiss this document that literally meets your request, you can also consult Hovey, Otis Ellis, Moveable Bridges, Vol 1 and 2, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1926, or try U.S. D.O.T., Northeast Corridor High Speed Rail Passenger Service Improvement Project, Vol VI, January 1977.  :) Honestly, you could go to your library and request those, by inter-library loan probably. There are also multiple online current, sources which may show the Devon Bridge name, but those are derivative, not independent, of the NRHP listing. --doncram (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's still the problem Don. I can keep citing other sources that list the route 1 bridge as the Devon Bridge, but I can't find any that call the RR bridge the Devon bridge unless it cites that one 1987 document. However, the burden of proof is on the editor, and I think I've made my case that this isn't really verifiable. A slide rule is a computer, but no one calls it one. I think this is the case here, too. How about we change the text to "is referred to in some documents as the Devon Bridge" and leave it at that until someone finds a definitive source? Markvs88 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, sorry. I've sorta enjoyed this chat, but i did provide a definitive source up front. You would have others believe that it is named "The Railroad Bridge"??!!!! Your evidence that there must be a mistake is simply that you are unaware of the name of the bridge. --doncram (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I am unaware of the bridge. It's that you are. You're citing a single source that calls it the Devon Bridge. I've cited 5 that states the Route 1 bridge is the Devon Bridge. Obviously both can't be. If you don't find "is referred to in some documents as the Devon Bridge" to be sufficiently neutral, what is your idea to come to a solution? Markvs88 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's my idea what is a solution: I do defer to your credible local knowledge that Washington Bridge is known locally as Devon Bridge. That is why i visited its article to verify that Devon Bridge was given mention as an alternative name. It was already mentioned and there was a footnote somewhat supporting it, and i made an edit to try to improve the reference. Also, I defer to your perspective in adding the Washington Bridge one to the new Devon Bridge disambiguation page, created in response to your perspective. It is fine and good to have that. That is a lot of concession to you already.

I do not, however, defer to your judgment that because you did not know that the railroad bridge was named Devon Bridge, that it must not have that name. There is a very credible, reliable source upon that fact in the article. Also, you seem not to understand that there are many places, buildings, things in the world that do have ambiguous names. In Wikipedia we address those usually by mentioning all the notable ones having the same name on a disambiguation page. It is not a problem. You state "Obviously both can't" have the same name. But that is not true, they do both have the same name, which happens to be an alternative name for both bridges (which seem both to have a more important main name that is different). There are many cases where two nearby places have the same name as their main name, and that is no real problem. If "Devon Bridge" was the main name for both of these, we would name their articles "Devon Bridge (U.S. 1)" and "Devon Bridge (railroad bridge)" or employ some other disambiguating parenthetical phrase. So you seem to be concerned about something that is not a problem here. --doncram (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What we're basically dealing with are conflicting sources, which is why IMO a compromise makes a lot more sense. That's fair, however I don't feel it's a concession to me as much as it is to accuracy. Anyway, that's a good solution. Markvs88 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some older usage of "Devon Railroad Bridge" and similar variations. It is possible that in some circles in the past, it was called "Devon Bridge" for short, but certainly that is not a common name for this bridge at present. --Polaron | Talk 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but by the way, by what sources do you make that assertion?

Also, FYI, there is at least one Devon Bridge in England, or more, but i am not creating articles for them now. The disambiguation page Devon Bridge will probably gain some additions with time, however. --doncram (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to heavily debate this topic, but I figured I'd just add my take on the issue once. I am quite familiar with this bridge -- I know exactly the one that is being referred to. And I have never heard anyone refer to, in neither a formal nor informal capacity, this railroad bridge as the "Devon Bridge." In fact, I never knew it had a "real" name at all. I looked at the NRHP document wherein this bridge is identified as the Devon Bridge and found it quite puzzling. Indeed a government source should -- in theory -- be a reliable source, but isn't it possible that the bureaucrat who filed the paperwork -- themselves unfamiliar with Southern Connecticut -- simply made a mistake by adding also the name of an unrelated, but nearby, bridge? Trust me, government bureaucracy isn't as accurate or efficient as we may want to believe -- just look at the tax code. Anyway, in our efforts to achieve a consensus on this matter, I'd personally have to be in favor of removing the Devon Bridge reference in this article, at least until such time that additional sources can be found to attribute this secondary name to. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I am willing to concede that it is possible that even a generally reliable type of source can have an error, but for you to disbelieve such a reliable source you need to have some other reliable source to contradict it. Here, the only evidence against the reliable source is that two Connecticut editors were unaware of any name for the bridge, and argue that because they did not know Devon Bridge was a name for it, it must not be.

I hope you don't mind very much a possibly impertinent question: Do you know the difference between Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity vs. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? If you don't, could we / should we edit the Wikipedia articles involved to merge any separate discussions about them. Because you (and I) can't explain any difference between them, they must be the same, right? :) --doncram (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DRAFT Summary

Draft summary of dispute: A source states that this bridge is also named Devon Bridge. Some editors point out that another local bridge is called Devon Bridge, too. They are unaware of any name for this bridge. They assert the source stating this bridge must be in error. They point out a purported error in this source, from where ownership information is reported on one page and expanded on another. While it is clearly explained that one page is a continuation of the other, they assert that the source is in unreliable. Is that about it? --doncram (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Here's how I read it:

Draft summary of dispute: An unreliable source states that this bridge has an aleged alternative name of the Devon Bridge. Some editors point out that another bridge within sight of this bridge is called the Devon Bridge, not this one. They are unaware of any name for this bridge other than "Housatonic River Railroad Bridge", nor apparently has the State of Connecticut nor the media. They rightly assert the source stating this bridge must be in error as the agency (NHRP) has been proven to be inept by affixing the alternate names of other, drivable bridges onto railroad bridges in the same region and no known bridges next to each other have the same alternate name anywhere in the country. While it had been explained that one page is a discrepency of the other, the source's "defender" he asserts that the source is in reliablec even though he cannot come up with a single non-NHRP source that bears out the point. Yes, that's about it. Markvs88 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I notice we both could fix typos in our draft summary statements, and perhaps expand them if they were to serve as summaries for any non-involved editors to settle this. For example, i would link to the discussion below about ownership; you might choose to fix your abbreviations for the National Register of Historic Places. Markvs88, how about we plan to refine our summaries, and then ask at Wikipedia:Third opinion for an opinion to settle this? I would ask for removal of the disputed tag and acceptance of the NRHP source. That process is suitable if there are just 2 persons disagreeing and the disagreement is civil. If you can speak for the other editor who agreed with you in part of this, then it would be okay by me to go with this. Would that be okay by you? Otherwise, we could just let this persist unresolved, or we could go to a bigger process involving more CT editors, like in an RFC, or involving wp:RSN editors, or otherwise. I would hope just one 3rd party might suffice. Pls. comment how you'd like to resolve this (and others comment too if you have something to say). Thanks. --doncram (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I wish to point out that if you'd agree(d) to the phrase I suggested many moons ago ("it is also listed by the NRHP as the Devon Bridge" (or something to that effect)), that would be fine since it's a fair compromise to work in a single source that flies against multiples to the contrary. I must disagree with removing the tag until the issue is settled. Since the "non-NRHP" side has a) multiple sources stating the Washington Bridge is aka The Devon Bridge (supporting the requirements of Wikipedia:Common knowledge, the media links alone proving the W.B. being aka the Devon Bridge, it is not Hearsay and is also not indirect knowledge), b) a supporting local opinion beyond mine (Sgt. R.K. Blue's) and c) because of the same issue occuring on the NRHP's Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge document I believe that Wikipedia:Third opinion is fine but ultimately pointless for your position -- especially when considering WP:USEBYOTHERS.

I therefore again ask that you reconsider the alternative wording to the phrase, as it is a compromise and one in keeping with the Treatment of alternative names section of Wikipedia:Article titles. Please note that I have nothing against you personally and have endeavored to maintain civility as well, to me this is just an editorial disagreement on a single point in a single article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that alternative wording suggestion, but I am fine with something like that. I just tried a version of that alternative wording in the article right now. Feel free to revise for better wording. Yes, thanks for maintaining civility, i was suggesting 3rd party resolution because i thot we were meeting that requirement. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

✓I agree with the new wording (as well as with the removal of the dispute tag) since it is accurate and a good compromise. Thank you Doncram! Markvs88 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with multiple edits by Polaron and Markvs88 to the Devon Bridge dab page, and comments here and there, I guess we are back to reopening this. It was part of the "compromise" that the disambiguation would be in place. If there is edit warring to suggest contention there, then there is contention here again. Frankly the assertion of contention is pretty silly. There is a reliable source stating Devon Bridge is the a railroad term for the bridge. There is no source saying it is not a valid term. So, how/when shall we proceed, to get Connecticut editors / railroad editors / Reliable-sources-focused editors / NRHP-focussed editors to give their views on the momentous question. Markvs88, please comment again now on whether you would accept a third party process resolution. Or what. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, my contention is what it has always been: as long as any reference to the H.RR bridge as the "Devon Bridge" clearly states that it's referred to by the NRHP, I'm fine with it. I do not understand how you can justify making a compromise on TWO pages, then balking at using the same verbage on a Disambig page. Markvs88 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

Poloran has found another problem with the NRHP documentation! On page 1 of the "Anne Baggerman" document, the bridge ownership is by CDOT. On page 1 of the "Clouette" document, AMTRAK is listed as the owner! So here we have the two NRHP documents supposedly entered on the same day with different data. I now renew my argument that this is NOT the Devon Bridge by any definition as the NRHP documents are obviously NOT verifiable nor authoritative. Markvs88 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The NRHP nomination document, listed in the article by me as "Anne Baggerman (August 11, 1977). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Housatonic River Railroad Bridge / Devon Bridge". National Park Service", is from 1977. Isn't it possible that, in 1977, the ownership was by Connecticut Department of Transportation, and that ownership changed since then? What is Polaron's source that ownership is different, now, by the way.

In general, the NRHP nomination documents certainly are very good, reliable sources. From my experience with hundreds or thousands of them, that's what i have found. I have also sometimes taken exception with some assertions in them, where the nomination was written by a property orwner or a consultant and the nomination contained some puffery like a comparative claim that a building is the "best example" or "oldest in the country" or whatever where the writer would not be in a position to know about all others. For basic description of facts about a property, though, the nominations are quite good. There are more frequent typos or other errors in the National Register's NRIS database, which is different, and which usually is based on NRHP application document information (but gets typos sometimes when its information is entered into the database). I and others accumulate errors for Connecticut NRIS data at wp:NRIS info issues CT and report them occasionally to the National Register get the database corrected. That is not cause for great concern about the actual NRHP nomination documents however.

Another source, also already in the article, also supports Baggerman's assertion that the bridge was owned by the state of Connecticut. That is the MPS document, "Bruce Clouette, Matthew Roth and John Herzan (February 4, 1986). "Movable Railroad Bridges on the NE Corridor in Connecticut TR". National Park Service". There you go, a second, corroborating source on a point you questioned. Hopefully you will now have more confidence in the NRHP document's accuracy on other matters, too! --doncram (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, that's what makes them non-verifiable, Don! Both are stamped "Apr 28 1987", so it is unclear which is the authoritative source. The later document doesn't note an ownership change, so at this point that's conjecture. Poloran undid my edit that AMTRAK owns the bridge, which was based on the "Clouette" document. This is how I noticed the different data. As good as NRHP documents might generally be, I think we can safely say that the discrepencies here raise a flag, especially since they're from the same organization and contradict 5 other sources and at least two Wiki:CT project members with local knowledge. Markvs88 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any contradiction in ownership here. Item 4 (Baggerman document) in the NRHP nomination shows the Connecticut Department of Transportation as the owner. Page 3 of the pdf for the Multiple Property Submission document (Clouette document) shows that the five bridges west of New Haven are owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (under the Property Owners header). Railroad ownership maps from the Connecticut Department of Transportation also confirm that it owns the entire right of way from New York state line to New Haven. --Polaron | Talk 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

About the 1977 date in the Baggerman-authored document, that is the August 1977 date from the document's Section 11, the date given by the preparer of the document. For NRHP documents, that is what we usually use, rather than the dates stamped received by the National Register. Note the 1977 date cannot be a typo for 1987, because it is August, and must be before April or June 1987. It is quite reasonable to believe that the NRHP document was prepared back then, and the property was not listed on the NRHP until almost 10 years later. There are often many-year delays.

Um, i'm sorry, what is any one source that contradicts anything in the article? You may have several sources that give Devon Bridge as a name for some other bridge. But, for example, there are many sources that say Washington Bridge is a certain bridge, meaning different bridges, which form no contradiction. There are several bridges named Devon Bridge so of course there are sources which say a given, different bridge has that name. This is getting old. If you don't come up with some credible source contradicting the sources in the article, some credible reason, I will remove the disputed tag soon. There is no legitimate dispute here, there is just you and maybe another editor saying you didn't know something, so it must not be true, despite a reliable source saying it is true. Do you also want to dispute that it is a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bascule bridge? I expect you did not know that, did you? Seriously, this is going on too long already. --doncram (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don, your example is spurious: there are not two Washington Bridges next to each other anywhere. The closest you get is in NYC, and they have different names: the one carrying I-95 is called the George Washington Bridge while the Washington Bridge carries traffic into Harlem. Here, you're trying to call two bridges that span the same body of water by the same (alternate) name, in the face of five credible sources which you yourself agree give that (alternate) name to the Route 1 bridge. This is the same as calling both Washington Bridges in NY by the same name, which is incorrect. Note that's the reason why the signage says "Geo. Washington Br." on I-95.[[6]] Meanwhile, you keep pointing at two documents from the same agency as being verifiable, even when the data in them is not identical and is unannotated for changes. There is most certainly a legitimate dispute here. No, I would not, would you like to argue that there is pedestrian access on the Housatonic Railroad Bridge? Truth be told, I can verify that it is a SRLB from other sources. I cannot verify that there are two Devon Bridges over the Housatonic from anywhere except the NRHP document(s). Markvs88 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My username is Doncram, thank you very much. The example is not spurious. I don't understand at all your point about the two documents are not identical and are "unannotated for changes". You have it in your head somehow that because you didn't know something it is not true. You have gotten several facts wrong by now, including that Polaron was suggesting there was some inconsistency. I notice wp:Ownership / tendentious seeming argument by you at Talk:Washington Bridge (Connecticut), too. It is looking more and more like you are showing inappropriate wp:OWNERSHIP here, too. You don't own the bridge or anything else in or around Milton / Devon, Connecticut. So what if you don't know something and/or can't find sources on some point; that is irrelevant. This is getting tedious.

If it helps you to absorb the idea that two nearly side-by-side bridges (isn't there one other bridge inbetween, anyhow?) to Devon could be called, essentially, "bridge to Devon", please consider a few other examples: Nishnabotna River Bridge refers to 3 bridges, including 2 within the same town in Iowa; Holbrook Bridge refers to two bridges in Holbrook, Arizona. I could give other examples of same-named bridges named for a river they cross or a town/location they are near. --doncram (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies! I don't mind people calling me Mark or Markvs, sorry about that. No, I have in my head that if I *know* something to not be true (IE: water is not dry and the sky is not red) then it is not true. You telling me I'm ignorant is a little hubristic. Several? Name one. I still don't see any documentation that the bridge changed hands at any time, only two documents that list different ownership. No, you're right. I do not own the bridge or (much) else around MilFord/Devon. However, neither do you. I'm legitimately disputing a point.

Wow, 5 bridges, and *none* of them with existing pages on Wikipedia. That certainly helped! I agree, this is getting tedious. Markvs88 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

READ THE STUPID DOCUMENT which you are citing as showing ownership being different. It is a document covering 8 bridges. Amtrak is listed as one owner on the front page. It is an owner of some of the bridges. See page 3, to which Polaron already alluded, where it is explained who owned which bridge at that time.

I removed the "Disputed" tag. There is no dispute. There has been none, zero, zip discrepancies between any sources, reliable or not, pointed out by anyone. --doncram (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What's this? No further "defense" of your disproved & poorly defended example? All I'm asking for is a *non* NHRP document that calls this the Devon Bridge. You have not done so, ergo there is conflict. As for the 8 vs 1: then why does it list Amtrak as the only owner on page one? No good answer for that, is there, why not list BOTH or the party (CT) that owns the majority? This goes to prove that there are inaccuracies in the documents, and that the "Devon Bridge" point is not a given. Tag restored. You cannot get out of a debate by not backing up your own points and ignoring mine. Markvs88 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another article

I've started an article for the Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge. Interestingly the NHRP document [[7]] claims it is also called the "Pequonnock River Bridge", contrary to what is known to locals and CT-DOT [[8]], as that is the bridge which carries Connecticut Route 130 over the Pequonnock River. Markvs88 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

bascule and bridge comparison details etc

Hey, there are sources now linked from the article that could be used to develop the article quite a bit more. Perhaps it could be expanded to be over 1500 characters and a DYK phrase could be found. Also there are HABS pics which could be added to improve the article. By the way, are there different kinds of bascule bridges? Is this one regular or special in some way? Why is this one listed on the National Register? Not all of the 8 bridges studied in the MPS study linked were actually listed on the National Register. Do they all still exist? Perhaps they could be compared and contrasted somewhat. --doncram (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Housatonic River Railroad Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130220204509/http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0 to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)