Talk:General Pierce Bridge

Proposed deletion
Granted, I created the article. Here's why I recommend keeping it.


 * 1) It is relevant to articles having to do with the Connecticut River.
 * 2) The group of articles beginning with "List of crossings" are attempts to be comprehensive.  They cover all crossings, whether they be considered 'special' by non-bridge fans or not.
 * 3) This, and other bridges including ones not yet covered, are related to the List of crossings of the Connecticut River.
 * 4) A bridge does not have to be remarkable to be of interest to some people.
 * 5) Take a look at the Collapsed bridge article before it collapsed, and consider that there are likely other possible reasons for such sudden changes in such an article.  For that matter, see List of bridge disasters.
 * 6) I'm still creating articles for this river, see US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River, which I created this morning.
 * 7) Some people like bridges, roads, and/or rivers.  The more such articles, the better from their point of view.  The bridge/road/river doesn't have to be be the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to get their interest.  In fact, the US Route 3 bridge mentioned above is about as unimpressive a structure as I can think of, other than the ones just downstream of it (covered later today, as I got pics this weekend of the first 22 crossings), yet I'm still taking the time to document it.  That should be considered a mark of interest.
 * 8) Add in people who are geo-centric and feel that the more articles relating to their state/province/country/continent/planet, the better.
 * 9) This article is short, yes.  It covers the basics, pending acquisition of additional data, which could show up at any time.

There are other reasons which don't occur to me at this time, and this is preventing me from continuing my task of continuing with articles for the Connecticut River. After I finish this river, I intend to go on to other rivers in the area. I suggest Nuttah68, that deletion for "non notable bridge" is purely your opinion, and that others may feel differently.

Denimadept 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All very interesting, but none of them are reasons for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:LOCAL, WP:NOT and WP:INTERESTING for reasons on establishing what should and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. As you protest you can remove the notice if you want and I'll take it to AfD to establish consensus on whether bridges are to be included merely for existing. Nuttah68 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Different people find different things of interest. Would you prefer the "List of Crossings" articles to include the "unremarkable" crossings in themselves, only linking to crossings which have more text?  How would you reconcile this with WikiProject Bridges, including the templates and many other bridges listed similar and similarly to this one?  How will you differentiate "remarkable" with "unremarkable"? Denimadept 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that people find different things interesting, which is why inclusion criteria are not based on 'interest'. Regarding the project, the first guideline there is follow Wikipedia guidelines. I would differentiate as I would with any subject matter, notability is shown through multiple, non trivial, independent, reliable sources. Nuttah68 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I'm not sure what to tell you. I like bridges, others in that project like bridges, other lists of bridges contain similar bridge articles.  What do you suggest I do to make this, and similar articles, more acceptable?  My main issue here is to take pictures and post them either in new stub articles or existing articles.  I get related information as I can, and include it.  It doesn't happen all at once, and I hope that others will assist over time.  Proposing one of "my" articles for deletion tells me that my basic concept may be off. Denimadept 14:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To make the articles acceptable I suggest you read and follow the policies and guidelines at WP:V, WP:NOT and especially WP:NOTE. Nuttah68 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From a quick skim of those articles, I can see that perhaps the List of Crossings articles should be reorganized in a general sense such that "normal" crossings are listed simply in them, perhaps with specs and images if any exist, but not as separate articles. At this time, I'm asking others in the Bridges project for assistance on this issue.  If I continue with article creation as I've planned, you might well do the "prop" thing for most of them in which case I've wasted my time, which I find discouraging but proper if appropriate.  The issue is a matter of documentation.  How can we document these things without someone deciding that our contribution is pointless and/or a waste of resources.  Perhaps I should try creating a Crossings wiki or something.  Or maybe I should just contribute to Structurae.  Denimadept 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping this article. I'm not from the area, so I'm not intimately familiar with the bridge, but based on a little research the bridge appears to be at least 750 ft long. This is a rather sizable distance and hence seems like a significant structure. Right now the article is short, but I've seen stubs that are shorter. This article can be expanded to include the history of the bridge and the namesake (General Pierce) could be explored.

On the larger issue of articles for all bridges, I think there should be a point where a bridge is not really worthy of a seperate article. I think the US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River mentioned above is an example of a bridge that doesn't need an article. Based on the picture, the bridge is rather short and a user would probably not even know they are crossing a bridge. In my experience with bridges and Lists of crossings, articles on each bridge tend to taper off closer to the source. These bridges tend to be short, nameless bridges that probably will never have enough information to warrant an article. For example, on the List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River, the articles on bridges end in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area, as most bridges upstream of there are minor crossings and the Mississippi itself is not very wide. They are referenced in the list for completeness, but don't need their own article.

I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule that could be devised specifically for bridges, instead it should be left to the best judgement of editors based on the general Wikipedia guidelines, which seems to have worked well for bridges. VerruckteDan 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can accept that modification. In that case, I can skip a number of the small bridges I got images of this past weekend but still create articles for bridges of more interest.  For instance, a small wooden-decked steel beam logging bridge is not of general interest, but something like the seemingly-hand-built iron Maidstone-Stratford Hollow Bridge (built 1893, rebuilt 2005), which wasn't even in the list of crossings before, is of interest.  You'll see what I mean when I get to it.  The simple bridges could perhaps be links to an image only, instead of an actual article.  What say y'all to that?  Oh, and I've not yet figured out who "General Pierce" was.  Might be a reference to the military service of the US President, but I'm not sure at this time.  Seems likely to be someone else.  Seems unlikely to be  either.  Denimadept 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are probably more "basics" the article could cover. Start with what state it is in and what type of road (county, state, toll, duck crossing?) crosses it.  (SEWilco 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Good idea. Denimadept 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

General Pierce
I did a quick check and found several General Pierces, including President Franklin Pierce. However, I would think if it was named for him, it'd include his full name, but who knows. I guess we keep checking. VerruckteDan 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found this General Pierce bio which seems possible. Denimadept 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewing some e-mail, I see it's named after a Civil War general. Let's see... Denimadept 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't guess which person named Pierce it might refer to; there also were two "General Pierce" native chiefs in Washington State. Write or visit the Connecticut Department of Transportation, tell them what you're doing, and ask about the history of the bridge.  Also check with state and local historical societies.  If the name was ordered by those with the purse strings, it might even be in your local library buried within the legislative-decreed state budget in years shortly before it was built.  (SEWilco 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, the bridge is in Massachusetts, which is where I'm pursuing it. Thanks for the ideas! Denimadept 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This bridge is definitely notable, if only...
...for replacing an older bridge at the same location: WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations/Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge --NE2 03:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Pierce 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/20110930222247/http://wgby.org/localprograms/flood/ to http://www.wgby.org/localprograms/flood/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Pierce 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/20071021203041/http://www.frcog.org/pubs/transportation/2007RTP/Ch5_RoadandBridges_draftJan07.pdf to http://frcog.org/pubs/transportation/2007RTP/Ch5_RoadandBridges_draftJan07.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)