Talk:Tinkers Creek Aqueduct

Public domain Tinkers Creek Aqueduct photographs
NOTE: Public domain Tinkers Creek Aqueduct photographs are available on the Memory.LoC.Gov and NPS.Gov sites. I have links posted in the article text and Wiki hidden < ! - - comments - - >, I just have not gotten around to downloading them, and re-uploading them to Commons.WikiMedia.Org. LeheckaG (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the NPS ones to WikiMedia (putting them in Categories: Bridges in Ohio, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio and Erie Canal, and Registered Historic Places in Ohio; with the exception of the area map on Canal Visitor Center & Lock 39 Map, which is in (AOL/CompuServe) .GIF format: Canal Visitor Center and Trailhead and needs to be converted to JPEG, PNG, or SVG format (to comply with WikiMedia/Wikipedia media format guidelines/recommendations). I will try to get to the LoC ones (first)... LeheckaG (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup
I went through and tried to cleanup the article abit to follow policy. I've personally never seen so many hidden comments in an article; let alone a National Historic Landmark. I could see needing them for an unnotable bridge; but it seems a bit over the top. It's also not the most inviting environment for new editors. I'm seriously contemplating moving the hidden comments to this page as they're not all that necessary. Also I removed the images and media section as we have templates like commonscat that will do that same thing in a more asthetic way. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me neither, about seeing hidden comments. I just removed some of them, as they are a serious hindrance to editing.  Just delete them, please don't move them here!


 * Argh! Aqueducts are not "unnotable" bridges.  NOT from an Ohio and Erie Canal point of view, nor from a bridge point of view!  Without the aqueducts and locks, the Ohio and Erie Canal would not have been possible.  "Normal" bridges support the weight of the vehicles which cross over them.  Ohio and Erie Canal Aqueducts also needed to support the WEIGHT OF THE WATER in addition to the weight of the 14 foot by 80 foot (3.5' of water drafted) canal boat and its 10 tons of cargo; plus withstand the additional dynamic forces of the boat, cargo, and water movement. I wish everyone would let me write the "bridge" article I started.  LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the first sentence needs work. It currently reads:  "Tinkers Creek Aqueduct Elevation: 610 feet (185.9 m)[1] was constructed to bridge the Ohio and Erie Canal over Tinkers Creek (Cuyahoga River) near the confluence of Tinkers Creek with the Cuyahoga River."  The footnote following elevation does not provide support for the elevation given. ACTUALLY IT DOES. Why comment on elevation at all?  Perhaps elevation could be a subordinate fact in  an infobox, but I don't think it is relevant for the intro.  Maybe it is more relevant for bridges than for aqueducts?  Also, is the 610 feet measurement actually the length, rather than the elevation?  For an aqueduct, a length measurement is more relevant, if you have to pick a single, salient quantified fact to speak about. doncram (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the first sentence abit, hope that it reads a bit smoother now (just rmved the Elevation and stated the obvious. Those hidden comments are more for someone's personal sandbox than an article and they'll be gone in about 3 seconds.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about converting the refs from vertical to horizontal? §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me? I don't know what you mean, vertical vs. horizontal references? doncram (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ELEVATION is a very significant fact from an Ohio and Erie Canal point of view! Elevation is MORE relevant for aqueducts than bridges (not the other way around)!  Elevation is the most significant fact about any of the aqueducts or locks along the Ohio and Erie Canal.  The canal climbs from around 571 feet around Lake Erie up to the Akron/Portage summit (Why Summit county is so named - the highest point in Ohio).  As to the other dimensions, specifications (length, width, height, ...), I am "digging", some are probably on the HAER blueprints I posted, but they are difficult to read, working on it ...  I am in Northern Ohio periodically (monthly), and I would have measured it in person, but NPS-CUVA has temporarily removed TCA (in 2007) as part of their reconstruction/rehabilitation project (similar to taking something "off exhibit" in a museum). LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for first sentence improvement. Note "Tinker Creek (Cuyahoga River)" seems to imply Tinker Creek is another name for the Cuyahoga River.  If it only means: the Tinker Creek that is the Tinker Creek which flows into Cuyahoga River, then drop the parenthetical expression, because confluence (perhaps better "flowing into"?) or whatever into Cuyahoga is mentioned immediately thereafter. doncram (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tinker Creek (Cuyahoga River) is the "standard" shorthand way of disambiguating a name, by specifying in parenthesis, its (downstream-parent) the "official name". There are several Tinker, Tinker's, or Tinkers Creek(s).  The longhand English alternative is to say: "Tinkers Creek, a tributary of the Cuyahoga River,".  LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Statement of Significance" section is not a standard section, and I don't think including the original such historical statement, upon designation of an NHL or whatever, is that helpful. I do quote the entire such statement in articles about certain archaeological sites, but only because all other information about the archaeological sites is suppressed. doncram (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had the contents as a "hidden" Wiki comment for my reference to write the article, and someone else made it into that section. LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, that explanation is helpful. Hmm, it seems this another way that having a lot of stuff in hidden comments is problematic, as others might bring stuff back in.  This exact text, anyhow, is in the NHL summary webpage, reference number 10 i think in the article, so we are not going to lose it.  Can the section be deleted, now, then?  LehackaG, if that is okay, just go ahead. doncram (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact section seems unnecessary in main text. Some/all of the factoids and their references could/should be moved into the bridge infobox. doncram (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya this article is quite a mess. I meant


 * versus


 * §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, i didn't understand what you meant here, either, until just now. But, I guess you are describing these two alternatives as "vertical footnotes" vs. "horizontal footnotes".  On this, I can't see how it matters. doncram (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

article cleanup subsection (inserted to break this discussion)
Elevation is a very significant fact about Tinkers Creek Aqueduct (I could probably "force" it into one of the Infobox fields if someone objects to it in the lead paragraph/first sentence). Does anyone else understand why? i.e. Why all the canal locks and aqueducts were built - to climb up to Akron/Portage Lakes (in Summit County - the highest part of Ohio). Admittedly, my interest in TCA is from a bridge/canal/engineering one and not a NRHP interest (I started broke out the article from a separate one about Tinkers Creek), and someone else subsequently "tagged" it as NRHP. I am trying to gather all my source information and references together, and then write the article. Everytime I check, others have been deleting and rearranging material. I appreciate constructive comments and efforts, adding materials and better arranging them. If you feel something should not be where it is, please < ! - - Wiki comment it out - - > rather than deleting it, so that I or others do not need to relocate reference/source materials and recreate things. Also admittedly, I have other articles which I have updated, so I have not gotten to spend that much time completing the bridge part of this one. LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I write my original TCA article from the aqueduct/bridge viewpoint? Then you can add whatever you NRHP stuff you wish? I find this process taking much longer than it should because we have way too many "cooks" on this one ... LeheckaG (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is still a complete disaster. I tried to do some cleanup, but it still needs a lot of help. - Eureka Lott 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, it is not a disaster. I think that LehackaG has been editing in some non-standard ways, but there is no need to panic or anything.  Does anyone have a deadline to meet?  And, LehackaG is explicitly asking for some time to develop the article.  Maybe LehackaG is right that there are too many cooks here.  Personally, i am trying to help by giving some mild feedback here and there on the Talk page.  Why not talk about things here.  I interpret Eureka Lott's big cleanup edit just now to be meant well, and i would definitely think it would be a fine edit on an inactive article.  However, given that LehackaG, and i think Stepshep, have been actively editing, I am not sure such a big edit without prior discussion is that helpful right now.  I suppose we'll see.  doncram (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if this sounds unkind, but it really is pretty awful. Prior to my attempt at a little cleanup, it consisted of a small amount of original content that was burdened by an overuse of images, templates, comments, and text copied from the National Park Service. Most of these problems still remain. Even the lead paragraph is confusing. It says that the aqueduct exists and that it was removed last year. - Eureka Lott 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

when infobox fields don't apply
Hey, i think that when a bridge or NRHP infobox field does not provide useful information to display, it is best to leave it blank. I suggest just skipping these, instead of making claims that may technically be true: Vertical clearance 	Unlimited Clearance below 	0 feet (0 m) Actually, i am not sure these claims are technically true. Was there no wire or walkway across the aqueduct, when it was in use, that would have in fact limited clearance above? How would we know, what is the source for unlimited and for 0? Also there is some "clearance" below an aqueduct, perhaps a person could have walked or waded underneath, though as Tinker Creek was probably not itself navigable, it was not a relevant to report for shipping. Or is it meant that there is no clearance below it now, because the aqueduct is not functional? That would also be a technically true but not helpful claim which would require a long footnote to explain, better left out. doncram (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added reference notes to the two above Infobox fields, "Unlimited" from the bridge sense is true because the aqueduct itself does not have any overhead structural members nor anything above it. In the reference note, I added text about other things overhead elsewhere along the canal.  Tinkers Creek is navigable by canoe or kayak (there are falls/rapids to avoid) and few use it because of some industrial pollution upstream.  Under low water level conditions on the Cuyahoga and Tinkers, it is possible to duck down and clear the aqueduct on Tinkers; but under normal/high water level conditions, the clearance is often 0 (see flooding). LeheckaG (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Images
I really don't see the need for all of those images. The simple link to Commons should suffice. There's no possible reason to have all of those, and to have the captions in CAPITALS. Which usually represents screaming. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  02:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm about to click the revert button. An article should remain readable, and this is going downhill fast.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CAPITALS came from the LoC HAER annotations which I had cut and pasted, I updated them to lower case and did some rewording. As I said before, I was using Gallery as a slide-sorter to choose which images to use and where to put them, I went ahead and hid the other ones inside Wiki comments. LeheckaG (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistics section
I simply removed another section, the "Significance" one, as I was sure that it should go (it was a cut and paste that refers to a historic district which includes the aqueduct, but is not about the aqueduct itself. If anywhere, it belongs, properly quoted, in an article about the district not the aqueduct). I hesitate before removing another one, the Statistics section, to allow for any discussion. However, i believe this should be deleted too. Any important statistics are included in the infobox already. It is not text, it is not grammatical, many of the lines don't mean anything or add anything that you would actually want to include in a text discussion. It is not appropriate to have a statistics section in the text of any article according to style guidelines, probably, though i am not looking up wp:MOS right now. However, certainly with an infobox carrying statistics info it certainly is redundant to have a statistics section. So perhaps that section served a purpose for a while but now should go. doncram (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As part of Cuyahoga Valley National Park, the NPS had submitted TCA along with many other significant features as a historic district rather than submitting them individually. Thus TCA's classification as a "significant contributing property".  While modern engineering techniques and construction materials enable bridges to be more readily constructed today (though modern ones still fall down at times), when TCA and the few other Ohio and Erie Canal aqueducts were designed and built - and the loads and water which they carried were tremendous (water is not "light") compared with the materials they had available.  So structures like TCA and early railroad bridges were significant in the providing the infrastructure for commerce and transportation, and they were amazing accomplishments of engineering and construction.
 * The "significance" section (of the historic district which you removed) was what text was available from the NRHP listing. I have been distracted with other Wikiprojects and have not gotten to spend much time on it.  I have some more material on TCA's engineering significance as an aqueduct/bridge, but since TCA is currently under renovation (NPS temporarily removed TCA from its location, pending funding to put it back) I have not spent much time on it.  LeheckaG (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Phase II Status
Someone with more knowledge of this should possibly edit this article. I believe phase II is being funded with "stimulus" money. This PDF http://www.nps.gov/cuva/parknews/upload/Recovery%20funds.pdf can be used as reference. It lists one of the projects as "Repair Historic Tinker’s Creek Aqueduct Including Removing Temporary Conveyance System Upgrade" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boufa (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tinkers Creek Aqueduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603143401/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/cuva/visitonline/towpathtour/tinkers.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/cuva/visitonline/towpathtour/tinkers.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)