Talk:Rochester 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.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Comments

feel free to add, especially too the railway bridge section Pratj 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, but...

Oh dear, I was just admiring your work in creating this article, and was about to send you a big congrats on it, when I realised some of the prose was familiar... I'm afraid we aren't allowed to copy and paste text from other sources, because the original writer/publisher will have copyright on it. We have to write the whole thing again in our own words (tediously like being back in school). So I'm terribly sorry to say that I've removed all the cut-n-paste text.

BUT. Really well done on starting the article - it's long overdue. And now it's there, I'm sure it will grow nicely... :-) JackyR | Talk 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

damn, so we r not allowed to copy and paste stuff off other websites (makes sense i suppose; just another part of the learning curve). anyway, can we change it back so i can turn it into my own words. Pratj 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ill have to add it again tomorrow (in my own words of course, damn copyright) if we revert it i can change it from there, so i have better bearings of the structure. Pratj 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they tend to discourage that, because it's too hard to write something sufficiently different. Best idea is probably to read it from teh original site in one window, then flick to another window and write what you think you remembered, rather than have the text there and edit it. Like you say, that learning curve thingy... Besides, I like the structure you already introduced! It's been preserved in the subheads. go for it! JackyR | Talk 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have padded it out a bit (without any copying or pasting). on a seperate note pickle is willing to help with the medway forts article Pratj 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source conflict

In digging around I find that The Rochester Bridge Trust is fond of the date 1381- while Hasted likes 1281. We have one source that credits Joseph Cubbit with a road bridge and another that thinks it was the rail bridge? ClemRutter (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Traffic and Politics: The construction and management of Rochester Bridge AD 43–1993, Nicholas Brooks says on p. 40 that it was in the winter of 1380–81, so not 1281, that meltwater and ice floes caused great damage. And in the same book it seems William Cubitt was responsible for a road bridge and designed the railway bridge.[1] I'll replace the erroneous Hasted with Brooks, but as I can't see enough of the book via Google Books to be confident of what it says about Cubitt I'll leave that, for now at least. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]