Talk:The Iron Bridge

message: I've added a cite needed tag for unsourced info.
Shouldn't be too hard to fix. 
— Cirt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Jamesx12345 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite needed 

message: In the section Closure, the article suggests that in 1923 a weight limit of  was proposed, and that a weight limit of  was actually imposed.  It says "tonnes", which means metric tonnes, so 2000 kilograms and 4000 kilograms.
Given the dates in the 1920s - well before metrication seriously took hold - this seems unlikely to me.  It seems much more likely that it was  and .  Can anyone with access to the source check what it says?
Note that in this sort of context, WP:MOSNUM says to use units of definition first, so if the weight limit really was defined in metric tonnes the current version would be correct, and if it was defined in imperial long tons the version with long tons first would be correct. Kahastok talk 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonnes 

message: A new addition lists the See also for an 1801 cast-iron arch bridge in Jamaica.
* Does this warrant inclusion as a see also here?
* Is the text "used the same technology developed for The Iron Bridge" at the Rio Cobre article accurate?
Both are cast-iron arch bridges. Both were cast in sections and assembled on-site. The Jamaican bridge was cast by Walker & Co in Yorkshire. The Jamaican bridge is notable in itself, and is notable as a novel iron bridge outside the UK.
However there is 20 years between these two bridges. By the time of the Rio Cobre bridge a cast-iron bridge is no longer novel. Also, although both are cast in sections, this is done for different reasons. The Jamaican bridge needed to be shipped in manageable portions. Their design techniques are also quite different. Early iron bridges, including The Iron Bridge, Pont-y-Cafnau (1793), Coalport Bridge (1799) and several others (although few survivors) are timber bridge designs, built in iron. They are poor designs as cast iron structures, as they rely far too much on tension and bending forces, for which cast iron is weak.  Later cast-iron bridge designs, including the 1801 Jamaican bridge are designed instead around compressive loads.  The Jamaican bridge is a far more advanced design than its near contemporary at Coalport.  The means of attaching the components is also different. The Iron Bridge and Pont-y-Cafnau use carpenter's dovetail joints, an awful design for cast iron. Coalport (AFAIK) avoids dovetails, but it still used tusked tenons, another carpenter's joint.  The Jamaican bridge instead used bolted dowel rods, of wrought iron in shear.
The Jamaican bridge is an important bridge and deserves more coverage, including in timeline articles for the history of bridge construction – but is it described correctly here?   Is it relevant to The Iron Bridge, which it post-dates by twenty years and has had no influence over. Is it also correct to describe it as "the same technology" when their only shared technology is that of iron casting, which was no longer a novel approach by 1801? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Bridge over the [[Rio Cobre]], Jamaica 

message: As the article stands, it implies that cast iron is an unsuitable material for bridges, "not a suitable structural material", and was avoided thereafter, " a few instances bridges and buildings built with cast iron failed". This is quite untrue - cast iron is an excellent bridge building material and was one of the Victorian's favourite materials for them. What changed is the design of bridges - the early iron bridges of this group were designed inappropriately for cast iron as they followed carpentry practice too closely. As the designs changed though, cast iron was used entirely in compression and successfully.  Although wrought iron was also used (as the article implies) this was then used mostly as plate girders (or at least, rolled linear sections) rather than the short sections of The Iron Bridge. This just wasn't a bridge which went anywhere, design wise. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add any improved explanation.Phmoreno (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast-iron bridges 

message: User:Ostrichyearning3 and I thought it would be worth trying to improve this article to the level where it would qualify for WP:GA status. The previous assessment in 2014 left some comments, and the article itself has evolved a bit since then. I've started this talk section so we can discuss what needs to be done, and see if anyone else wants to help. Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Probably best to fully address any points still standing in the previous review and can then re-submit it! best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered  if  would like to join us? Hallucegenia (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  would be able to help, he's done a lot of work with civil engineering structures in this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try to get this to Good Article status 

message: None of the references I checked use The Iron Bridge with a capital T, suggesting that the recognised name of the subject is just Iron Bridge. Is there a reason the article shouldn't be at Iron Bridge (England) or some similar variety? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm inclined to agree, and only didn't question the title because it's been that way for a while! It's pretty clunky, and if searching for it you wouldn't start with a "the". A brief debate on 25-26 May 2006 led to the current title, if it was something else Iron Bridge seems like the best option, I think it's notable enough compared to the other items at Iron Bridge to have first claim on the name.  Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the bridge is usually referred to as "the Iron Bridge", but Wikipedia articles start with a capital letter, so I'd be inclined to leave the entry as "The Iron Bridge". Hallucegenia (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this reasoning makes much sense. If it's not capitalised, it's not part of the name. Compare "the Tower of London", for example. It's always used with the, but the article is at Tower of London. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I also agree, but suggest you start a formal WP:RM on the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title