Talk:Berkley–Dighton Bridge

Reorg
This article could use some clean up to distinguish the different bridges at this location - including the most recently demo'd and the current temporary bridge, as well as the future bridge.--Marcbela (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what you have in mind, I figure. I'm no longer in the area, so I can't keep up with this.  The third bridge is now completely gone? - Denimadept (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, here's what I suggest: the now-eradicated bridge was the third such structure. Differentiate between it and the new bridge using that fact. Also, someone might eventually come up with information on the previous bridges. Note what was done with the Tay Rail Bridge as an example, and don't worry about the lack of information about the 1st and 2nd bridges.

The longer WP is around, the more this kind of thing will happen, I figure. We might as well set a standard. - Denimadept (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've opened this question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges page. - Denimadept (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When the new bridge opens, I bet it's going to be named after some politician or something, probably not the generic Berkley-Dighton Bridge moniker. I think the article should either focus on the "site" or on the 1896 bridge, with references to the previous bridges and to the temporary and future bridge. When the new bridge is built, should have its own article. (Similar to nearby Brightman Street Bridge and Veterans Memorial Bridge in Fall River).--Marcbela (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Until then, is going with this idea bad? - Denimadept (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article now is a bit confusing. The into refers to the bridge that isn't built yet, the photo shows the temporary bridge and the infobox lists stats for the recently demolished bridge. Plus, the bulk of the article refers to the 1896 demolished bridge. It needs to be better organized, IMO. If the article is going to be about the 1896 bridge, that should be the focus. See for example: Tacoma Narrows Bridge which is about the current bridges, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), their famous, but non-extant predecessor. Perhaps this article can be split now - have a "Berkley Dighton Bridge (1896)", and re-tune the current article for the current temporary bridge and the future bridge.--Marcbela (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's even better, yeah. - Denimadept (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Linkify: Berkley–Dighton Bridge (1896). Let's start. - Denimadept (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a start, creating the new article about the old bridge from this article, then revising this article to focus on the coming bridge. It still needs work, such as a more recent image, perhaps showing the existing infobox view as it is now, plus the construction site with the total lack of a crossing to the north of the temp bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Berkley–Dighton 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/20090420230045/http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=604940 to http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=604940

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)