Talk:Trinity Bridge, Crowland

Stub class
How much more is there to say about a bridge?

We know where it is, the history of the build, and a bit of social stuff.

We could add 'talk from the bridge', as a croylandism for talking nonsense. There might be a written reference to that in the church guidebook.

What does it take for a bridge article not to be a stub? I do wonder about the expectations of WP --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * More information would be helpful: dimensions, who designed it, how much it cost to build, maintenance information, when the rivers were moved away, why they kept the bridge standing rather than remove it, and information about the wooden bridges which preceded it. If you want some good examples of bridge articles and what's wanted, see WikiProject Bridges and more specifically, the list at WikiProject Bridges. - Denimadept (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

River diversion
I do not find anything definitive about when the river was diverted.

A lithograph from 1861 shows water, but this might be sentimental. https://www.wellandantiquemaps.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/irun/uc_product/images/CROWLAND-BRIDGE-LINCOLNSHIRE-by-the-I-L-N-c-1861.jpg?itok=gqO51x7g

A photo, 1859 by Samuel Smith is inconclusive, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/photograph-of-trinity-bridge-at-crowland-by-samuel-smith-on-news-photo/90769944 at least as seen online; the image is indistinct and the surface under the bridge could be water or road; in hand I'd expect the photo would be more discernible.

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)