Talk:Canton Viaduct

message: This article lacks the benefits of an introductory section as described in WP:Lead. Page structure should generally follow WP:Layout. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another fine observation, which would be more relevant if the new editor writing it indicated he/she would like to receive comments.  Again, I am not sure why this article is getting so much scrutiny. doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comrade Doncram, kindly assume good faith, or you will make it seem as if no good deed truly does go unpunished.  Why discourage collaborative support (some of which you yourself have brought to bear)? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i do assume good faith in your and others' efforts here, but I eventually became uncomfortable about how Canton V. might be perceiving all this, given lack of comment by Canton here on the Talk page.  I guess the interactions via successive edits to the article are going okay, though, given no explicit complaints posted publicly here or elsewhere by Canton. doncram (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page structure 

message: With all due respect, I believe that six of the eight images currently in the gallery, of arches elsewhere, belong in another article, perhaps on architectural arches, that can be linked to, if not already linked.  My opinion on this is not the last word, of course, but the inclusion here can be seen as tangential and distracting for the reader focusing on the Canton Viaduct as such. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of galleries and making the article hard to follow, it's easier to read and flows better (in my opinion) if major article content is in the article itself rather that being placed in a narrow caption region. In general, images should support the content, not be the document structure or primary focus. For example, if one wants to read about the construction, one would probably look for a section with a name like "Construction" and there find writing and images about it (is why I moved the image there, and why I have previously noted and worked to reduce the verbage in the infobox). Previously (and now creeping again) there is becoming a catch-all gallery of all sorts of images, and the actual article content becomes an afterthought on them. Based on CV's comments embedded in the page, I think he (she?) is trying to treat this as a firstly as visual publication, a direction with which I disagree. Good to avoid layout messes, but really good to get organized factual content. Fortunately, we have lots of space, and so can organize and write about each topic. We also have lots of other pages on related topics, so if there is a lot to be said about kinds of viaducts and comparing different support systems, well that's not specific to this viaduct, so it could be off-loaded onto the viaduct page. Lots of detail about "not what this page is about" makes it harder for a reader to find that info at all. This is indeed a fairly unique viaduct design, so talking about this design here makes a lot of sense, and I'm glad someone wrote about it! Talking about a different type of design on a different viaduct in a different that just happens to be from the same era that already has a whole page to talk about it? Off-topic. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Yup, looks like a bug that one can't have just a bulleted list in an infobox field because the first item's asterisk is treated as a real asterisk character instead of as a bullet. So for now we're stuck with , which gives unusual whitespace if there's no other leading text. Affects many infobox types. Will see if infobox experts have a general solution. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List in infobox 

message: Could someone please center the text in the cornerstone captions.  Also, if I could put these images in a table (not a Gallery) I wouldn't need to use all the 's.  I use them so the the succeeding sections don't get merged with the text associated with the picture (not the caption but the text next to it) THANKS!! Canton Viaduct (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting help needed 

message: This was in comment tags in the article, have moved it here Wongm (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do section in article 

message: The U.S. Census Bureau map conspicuously lacks two of the most essential items, namely the Viaduct and the railroad.  Perhaps someone with the proper graphics skills and software will modify this map to show them. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a new map that will show the railroad and Viaduct, should be posted by Thursday 7/16. Sswonk (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Surpassingly elegant! Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the river, in the confines of this map, be labeled "Canton River"?  Its confluence with the Neponset is about a mile away, well off the left-hand edge. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That is listed as a "variant name" by the USGS . It's name on USGS maps is "East Branch Neponset River", which is what I was looking at when making the map. But, the article says Canton River throughout, so I will change it with (East Branch Neponset River) in small type beneath the name. I left off East Branch to save space, really shouldn't have done that but now that I see the way the article is written, look for an updated map file in a few minutes. Sswonk (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  New file uploaded. Sswonk (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  Thanks again. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Regarding the text in the lead section, "The bridge has been in continuous service for 174 years (as of 2009) and now carries high-speed passenger and freight rail service." I am wondering if using the  template here may make things easier and read better, i.e.  yields "The bridge has been in continuous service for  years and now carries high-speed passenger and freight rail service.", updated automatically every July 28. I assumed the date from the infobox is what would be used to calculate age. Sswonk (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! DMacks (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years of service 

message: I corrected the lead paragraph and removed the explanatory image from the Geometry section. The error was that the circumference and diameter of a circle created by an extended Canton Viaduct was based on 1 degree = 615 feet. The measure used in surveying is 1 degree = 100 feet and thus the diameter stated (13.3 miles) was 6.15 times larger than actual (2.17 miles). I cited a railroad surveying guide for reference. Sswonk (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the correctness of the information, but I do (did) think the article dwelt too much on this small point. Fact is, it's not very curved and the curve is not important in any aspect other than how it happened to be built (I assume out of architectural and terrain convenience). The large amount text and image gave me a feeling of writing from a perspective of astonishment (essentially "Can you believe it? Would be a circle some huuuuge diameter!") rather than simple factual tone. DMacks (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was definitely wrong, which is why I edited it. I removed the Geometry header and curvature paragraph entirely; there must be thousands of one degree curve sections of railroad track in the world. The fact that the viaduct is on a one-degree curve is in the infobox, and may be helpful to include somewhere in the article but is not mentioned for now. I re-headed the remaining paragraphs, which don't really contain any geometry, based on the content. Sswonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the curvature is undeserving of detailed coverage and a special section; it can be given one line somewhere else.  The diagram is erroneous in showing the viaduct subtending one degree when we now know it to be approx. 6.2 degrees.  That throws off the 16" calculation as well, but that level of detail, in my opinion, is excessive and distracting.  Removing the erroneous diagram and 16" statement. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it known that the curvature is consistent over the bridge's length and circular? The curve is so slight, I can't tell from aerial photos whether there are "straighter" and "curveder" parts, but I also know that most curves are spiral (gradually increasing and then decreasing curvature) rather than constant circular. The "would make a circle..." statement even less applicable (separately from being undue-weight/irrelevant) to me. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The curvature would make the eastern side about 0.5% longer than the western side (calculation on request).  I fail to see how this is worth mentioning.  Any wedge shape would be imperceptible, or at least unremarkable.  It's at most a one-inch difference in 18 feet. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Putting it another way, if you picture an area 27' wide (approx. outside width of the viaduct) that is 18' long on one side and 18' 1" long on the other (the size of a small house or an extra large living room), it's hardly a decent keystone shape.  Does it merit all the diagrams, words of text, and discussion? Hertz1888 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also tagged the "wedged arches" statement as needing a citation. The Thomas Viaduct, another curved stone bridge of the same era, uses wedged piers as well as wedged spans to accomodate 612' length at 4° curvature. Not that I have evidence to contrary for Canton Viaduct but we need to have verifiable information here. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the radii on the curvature image (which itself appears to be WP:OR) supports the claim that the buttresses themselves are also wedged (not just the archways between them): the diagram matches the explicit description in the formal engineering analysis cited for the Thomas Viaduct article). DMacks (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry section 

message: *Please remove the following files from my uploaded files (gallery) page: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&format=html&img_user_text=Canton+Viaduct&order=-img_timestamp
Canton Viaduct Geometry.PNG
Canton Viaduct Geometry2.PNG
US Census Bureau Map - Canton Viaduct.gif
Canton Viaduct Stonework.jpg
Also, where is the File:Canton Viaduct Repairs 1906.jpg file?  If shows in the article but not in my gallery
Thank you Canton Viaduct
:Since you uploaded these files, you can very easily request that they be deleted yourself. Go to the image page by clicking it in your gallery, click "Edit this page", and copy and paste this text to the top of the edit box for the picture: . You can read about the template at WP:CSD G7. This convinces the authorities (administrators) that the speedy deletion request is from you, and it will be deleted in a few minutes. BTW, I removed your personal email from a comment above this one, but it wasn't done because you did anything against the rules to include it. I just thought you weren't aware of the things that can happen with spammers, and what is discussed in Wikipedia:Personal_security_practices. It's just a recommendation, please don't take it any other way. Sswonk (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I needed to be a little clearer about this. What needs to be placed at the top of the page is just the two braces, db-author, two braces, exactly as highlighted above. The code surrounding it with the "code" and "nowiki" inside < > that is visible when editing this page is used to keep the template from becoming live on this page. The thing to do is copy the text as displayed here on the page, as highlighted i.e. without the code and nowiki tags. I can't fix your placement of the tag because that makes me the last person who edited the image page, it needs to be you. Sswonk (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted 4 of the 5 that were tagged. I declined to delete :File:Canton Viaduct Stonework.jpg (for now) because it seems like a good picture for possible use in article: nice perspective of relative size of water arches. Others please advise whether there is use for this image or if there's another one serving my envisioned purpose (or whether don't need such an image at all). DMacks (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Re: :File:Canton Viaduct Repairs 1906.jpg, the page is there but the image is gone, I think it needs to be uploaded again, not sure what the problem is. Sswonk (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: I asked, using translation software, a question on the Russian wikipedia about the Russian bridges. A detailed response was received after a couple of weeks and posted at User talk:Sswonk#Canton viaduct in Russia. CV, I am also posting this link on your talk page. Sswonk (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian viaducts 

message: Regarding the caption for the picture of the Dedication stone...
I have a problem with the inclusion of the line:
*The Operative or Craft Freemasons' calendar year was 5834 A.L. (Anno Lucis - in the Year of Light)
First, it repeats the confusion between operative masonry (stone masonry), and speculative Masonry (or Freemasonry).  The term "Craft" Freemsonry has nothing to do with opperative vs. speculative.  The term is used (mostly in England) to distinguish basic freemasonry (the first three degrees) from the "further" degrees of the York and Scottish Rites.  In the US we use the term "Blue Lodge" with the same meaning.  
Second, while "Craft" Freemasonry does use the Anno Lucis calendar... it is an irrelevant factoid in the context of this article.  There is no indication that the Dedication Stone at the Canton Aquiduct ever contained a Masonic, Anno Lucis date.  So why bother mentioning it? Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has an answer... I will edit the text of the caption. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next issue 

message: The introduction states that the viaduct was built by Scottish Freemasons.  I'm not sure that this is a reasonable representation, as it then goes on to explain that the masons who built it were also Freemasons.  That's not out of the question as the craft in Scotland was always somewhat different in tone, but the emphasis becomes very different from what it currently is.  It wasn't built by a Masonic organisation per se.
I'm also somewhat concerned by some of the wording in the Freemasonry section.  The article currently speculates about lodge membership in Ma, although there is neither sourcing nor clear analysis to support that.  If some of the masons who built the viaduct were also Freemasons then we're left without some key information.
*Were they Scots who joined Freemasonry in Scotland?
::In that case they may have attended a local lodge whilst engaged in the build, but need not have joined.
::They may also have been involved in a peripatetic lodge under the Grand Lodge of Scotland which would not now be present in Ma.
*Were they Scots who had joined Freemasonry whilst elsewhere?
::We don't have the information about where but a similar point is valid, they may have visited but not belonged to.
*Was the usage Scottish actually denoting that they were Scots or was it the peculiar US usage where they were American of Scots heritage?
We could do with some clarity and change of emphasis.  any thoughts on it?
ALR (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the sources themselves seem to be somewhat contradictory and unclear on these points.  It might help to take a closer look at the various sources... and outline who says what. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of observations 

message: The caption for the picture of the front of the dedication stone reads:
*The Canton Viaduct Dedication Stone now rests in Canton Viaduct Park on a curved wall (see gallery) over a symbolic keystone  made from original stones removed during the 1993 deck replacement. The keystone is symbolic in Freemasonry, and the Canton Viaduct contains 77 keystones. The front inscription reads:  (followed by a list of Directors of the P&O)
My concern is with the sentence I have highlighted in bold.  The keystone is somewhat symbolic in Freemasonry (although that symbology is limited to the York Rite)... and the viaduct may have 77 keystones... but placing them together like this makes it seem as if the two facts are connected when there is no evidence that they are.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that the key stone under the Dedication Stone has any connection to Freemasonry. This is a WP:SYNTH violation, but one that is resolved easily by removing the sentence. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing none, I will do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedication Stone 

message: With recent edits by myself and SarekOfVulcan, the sub-section on Construction no longer mentions anything about Freemasonry.  It is therefor a little odd to keep as a sub-section within the section on Freemasonry.  I think it should therefor be moved out of that section, and should be promoted into a section on its own. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction 

message: Only two issues with this section... The text currently says: "The Dedication Stone was originally topped with a 63" long × 8" high × 24" wide capstone with double beveled edges, creating an octagonal profile. The capstone has been missing since 1860 and may have had a Masonic engraving."  My first issue is with geometry...  since the Dedication Stone is a rectangle, the addition of a capstone with double beveled edges would create an irregular hexagon, not an octagon.  You would need another  double beveled stone at the base to form an octagon.  My second issue is with the end of the passage... "and may have had a Masonic engraving"... This is tagged as needing a source.  Without a source it is complete speculation.  Who says it may have had a Masonic engraving?
I will correct the octagonal/hexagonal confusion... although, to be honest, I would prefer to simply delete the clause all together, as I think the the geometric profile (whether hexagonal or octagonal) formed with the capstone is trivial.
Since the speculation about engraving is tagged, I will give other editors some additional time to find a source.  But if one is not found within a month or two, I will remove it as being original research. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedication stone 

message: Why is the infobox humongous? The infobox is a summary of the article, not the place to describe each and every one of the topic's characteristics. For instance, "number of spans", it should just say 71. If you want to describe all of them, write about it. If its not in the body, it shouldn't be in the infobox. 74.104.40.47 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: First of all, let me say that this article has got to be one of the best, most comprehensive articles on Wikipedia I have ever read.  It is just unbelievable.
I have complained elsewhere about the pathetic quality of Wikipedia articles.  Hence, it's doubly ironic that this article has been given not one, but multiple quality grades of 'Start'.  Does this intend to imply that this article not only needs improvement, but *immense* improvement?  If so, whoever is responsible for assigning these grades has committed one of the grossest insults I have seen committed on Wikipedia.  Elsewhere on this site are articles having one-tenth the content of this one, written in middle-school English by armchair experts, which have been given an equally undeservedly-high score of 'B'.  So when this article's referees come back from their three-handcrafted-ale lunch, perhaps they can tell me why an article like this, which covers seemingly every imaginable angle of this topic--technological, historical, civic, and more--with numerous professional-looking graphics, passes in your eyes for 'Start' quality.  I mean, where are the crummily written sentences that need to be fixed?  Where's the absence of depth?  Are you instead saying that the article has too much content, and needs to be cut back?  If so, that premise is unacceptable.  We want Wikipedia to be a base for all knowledge.  So let us write.  Unless I'm missing something here (which is definitely possible), I think it's pathetic.
At any rate, the link at bottom labelled 'Russian American Cultural Center of Boston' is bogus.  In fact it's doubly bogus:  Not only does it take you to one of those 'You can buy this URL for $19.95' sites, it insidiously blocks your browser's Back button so you can't return to the article.  (For decades, I have bitterly objected to Microsoft's crummy philosophy that the user's very ability to control his own UI (user interface), on his own computer, can be hijacked by the mere *content* which the app happens to be displaying at any given moment.  I have programmer friends who tell me, Well, it's in the nature of HTML for that to happen.  BULL-shyte.  Then program the stupid browser to let the user override it.  It would be as if Microsoft Word became incapable of certain user functions depending upon the topic you're writing about.  When it comes to browser function, if you tell it to walk you to work, you must let it carry your lunch as well.)
So delete this link immediately.
And my congratulations to the creator(s) of this fine article.
--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Link removed... thanks for checking it. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your links is hijacked 

message: This entry is long.  It is 2500 words longer than the entry on The Golden Gate Bridge. I don't mean to minimize the importance of the Canton Viaduct, but really, do we need multiple Lego models?
Hobga (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: D&B is the company that constructed the Viaduct. User:Deadbolt44 tagged D&B for notability last December. Today, User:BD2412 worked on the D&B page, then tagged it for merger into the Viaduct article with an edit-summary "the architects can be confirmed to have existed and done this job, but I have found nothing else whatsoever.". I support the merger. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat ya here by 65 seconds! DMacks (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[:Dodd & Baldwin]] 

message: Do we necessarily need eleven photos of a lego model of this bridge? One or two would suffice, no? 2600:8805:8083:100:1534:43EF:853C:D127 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lego?