Talk:Medway Viaducts

message: Thought I would start a dedicated page for this bridge.  Please can you help me expand it with info etc.  When I have time i'll add lots too it!
Thanks--Screen42 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original M2 bridge (ie built for the first M2) has always been called the Medway viaduct, the new motoway bridge and CTRL rail bridge are just additional viaducts alongside the previous/existing one. Pickle 22:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea with the M2 and rail distinction. Pratj 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe this page should just come under a heading of 'bridges that cross the medway'--Screen42 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, i will do a seperate Rochester Bridge article Pratj 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  its prehaps an idea to have one like thames crossing series in the long term, but thats a short term relastic goal Pickle 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a Rochester bridge article. i was surprised there was not 1 already. Pratj 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The bridge

message: I have added a bridge info box but there are some details I can't find - does anyone have them? Regan123 13:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO its a little messy because we're talking about 3 seperate bridges all known as the "medway viadcut" (and one of which has been rebuilt giving it 2 sets of figures) Pickle 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we could create seperate boxes for the three bridges.  This is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges recommended info box and whilst I am not a member of the project I do like the info.  If we could get pictures of the three bridges then I would like to split it up. Regan123 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will try and get around to doing so, i only live (half the time) around the corner Pickle 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge info box 

message: Don't know if I dreamt this, but was their plans to build a huge viaduct across the Medway, when the Chatham Line was being built many years ago?  I am sure I read this somewhere.  The bridge would have gone into tunnel somewhere near Rochester.  I think the cost prevented it ever being built.   I could be wrong--Screen42 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your on there mate. An extensive reference site like kentrail.co.uk doesn't mention it at all. My understanding of local railway history is that the SER built the North Kent Line to Strood through the old Medway and Thames Canal. This was then extended southwards to Maidstone. LCDR built (as the East Kent Railway) from Dover and Ramsgate (but started at Faversham IIRC) to the SER line at Strood (hence North Kent junction). SER built their own branch to Chatham alongside the LCDR as a wrecking measure and managed to deny them running rights over their North Kent Line, thus the "Chatham Main Line" was built up to the ? railway at St Mary Cray (or was it Bromley South). Pickle 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have dreamt that one!--Screen42 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh yes the Peter's Pit development, my guess would be that wouldn't be huge (more like Aylsford) as big boats only go as far as the cement works at Halling/Cuxton Pickle 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed bridge, never built?

message: I Think we should change the title of this page to 'Medway Bridges'  This is the name used on the Ordance Survey Maps for the area.--Screen42 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While i accept the OS maps of the area to call it the "Medway bridges", a Google check shows the "Medway viaduct" is its actual name - see http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22medway+viaduct%22&meta= . "Medway bridges" IMHO sounds like a category page for all bridge over the medway.... Pickle 06:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose a name change for this article

message: Can anyone tell me why?
ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged for clean up

message: Cant see why my recent edit was undone.  The article is about the bridges.  The speed record is relevant as it occurred on the bridge.  The Paris to London record section is irrelevant as it was completed over the entire line. Anyone want to discuss?Screen42 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Screen42, thank you for your edits.  Everything on Wikipedia should be cited (WP:CITE) using a reliable source (WP:RS).  The diff for the edit in question is here.  This edit removed a citation .  This citation states, "Neil Meare, who took the train up to 200mph over the Medway viaduct"—this is the basis of the paragraph in the article, and the article does not state more than this.  Thusly the result of the edit was to remove a reliable, cited statement, and instead to replace it with an uncited claim.  This is counter to the general activity of Wikipedia, which is to reflect reliably published works.  May I also draw your attention to WP:3RR/WP:BRD, and to WP:MOSDATE (the allowed date formats for Wikipedia).  Once again, thank you for getting involved and wanting to help with improving the articles on Wikipedia.  —Sladen (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have finished sorting this page out.  If someone could maybe sort out the reference for me I would be grateful.  Not edited much on here for a while.  So learning it all again.  Screen42 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Screen42, thank you for posting here on the Talk page.  I saw the additional edits and composed a further query about the other references being removed.  Thank you for adjusting the date formatting.  Comparing  (before) with  (after) the formatted citation sources are no longer visible.  Do you think it would be appropriate to restore the previously—cited—material?  I would appreciate your guidance.  If the problems are relating to missing or lacking functionality in the beta editor (the "VisualEditor"), have you tried the Wikitext source editor that you will have used previously?      —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sladen, I will try and find citations for the points of reference this week.  Many of the facts are from personal knowledege of the area and bridges.  The speed record is from the details on the photo of the plaque.Screen42 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This falls under original research (WP:OR).  Something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT.  To clarify, the query above is about how "it would be appropriate to restore the previously—cited—material?"  A reverted-revert is such a rare occurrence, that I am somewhat hesitant to attempt further edits without gaining confirmation. —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finished updating this page.  I have put in references.  It looks and reads much better Screen42 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity, I am asking about the cited material and accompanying references, that were removed in the earlier edits, as linked above.  You must have felt extremely strongly in order to perform revert of a revert.  This is the reason I am keen to gain your thoughts about the cited material and reliable references removed.  Please, address this.  —Sladen (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the text about the Paris to London because it was not relevant to the article.  I also added a picture of the replacement fact which supported the text I had newly entered. I have now added a new link for this fact.Screen42 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAICT, the most recent edit added a reference that does not even contain the words "Medway", nor "Viaduct".  It appears that the offered reference has little to do with the Medway Viaducts.  While the earlier statements and references that explicitly discussed the Medway viaduct have been removed.  Removing relevant statements and relevant supporting citations, while then belatedly adding non-relevant ones, is unlikely to be in the interests of Wikipedia or our readers.  —Sladen (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed records removal