Talk:Waldo–Hancock Bridge

message: It,s mostly about properly inserting Ext.links in the footnotes and moving the section below the footnotes. Refs als needs moving after punctuation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 May 2006.
:Can you elaborate please. I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly. Clarification might be good. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: so what happened to the factoid they quoted on the main page? something about the bridge coming in so far under budget that they were able to build a whole other bridge with the money saved.  Right now, the article just says that the bridge came in under budget. YggdrasilsRoot 
:Are you sure? Looking at the Construction section, I see "The Waldo-Hancock Bridge was noted at the time for its economy of design and construction. It cost far less than had been appropriated by the State Highway Commission, which enabled the construction of a second bridge between Verona Island and Bucksport." On an unrelated note, that paragraph is too similar to the source and needs rewording to avoid copyright issues. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source in question is WP:PD (HAER) as the reference clearly shows. Therefore there are no copyvio issues whatever. Stylistically, it could be rewritten if desired, but there is no actual need. If I get a chance I'll try to find more info on the second bridge. Terraserver shows it to be a rather mundane non suspender though (suspenders at high res on terraserver have clear towers visible in the images) so there may not be too much available. I haven't actually searched though. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to ask about that. I reverted my attempt at a rewrite. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I grant that this story is well-sourced but it just doesn't add up. If the  story is true and only one bridge was originally planned, then the sole purpose of that bridge was to provide access to Verona Island from the south, where the nearest substantial town is Belfast, fifteen miles away. If you were going to build a bridge to Verona Island, wouldn't it make more sense to go to Bucksport, just across the river? Verona Island currently has a population of about 500; I suppose it could have been more populous in the 1930s but most of the population seems to be on the north side of the island, near the Bucksport bridge so, actually, I'd bet there were fewer people on the island before the bridges were built.  It seems more than a little extravagant to spend the equivalent of $12 million building a bridge to a small island with few people on it. Doesn't it seem much more likely that the plan was to build two bridges all along, so that US-1 could be rerouted? Dricherby (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  so cheap they built two... 

message: Why not just say "the second bridge"?  Yes, I agree that you can't consider it "a first" in that regard then, but that whole sentence is so blatently contorted. -- Ch'marr 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were built concurrently (IIRC.. certianly both in 1931 anyway) so it's difficult to establish which was first; was it first proposed? first started? First cables installed? First opened? First dedicated? I don't have enough chrono info on construction timelines to say for sure which one was first in any of those areas, except dedication... St Johns was earlier in the year. So going "one of the first two" is a bit convoluted, true, but a good compromise. Also, as I pointed out to Sam, that's not my wording, it's the wording of the HAER historian, Katherine Larson Farnham. But please, keeping all that in mind, give it a go if you can change it for the better, because that would be swell! ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It was one of the first two bridges..." 

message: To the anon who removed this link:  it's not dead.... further the  Structurae entry was a major source of data used in the article, Structurae is perhaps the preeminent bridge DB extant. I'd appreciate it if the link was not removed again without discussion here on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[structurae]] link is not "dead" 

message: When I type in Waldo-Hancock Bridge, the article comes up, but it says that it was redirected to Waldo-Hancock Bridge, the only difference I can see being a longer hyphen- and the paragraph I added regarding the demolition of the bridge does not appear unless I reload the article.  Does anyone know why this would be?72.224.177.228 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect