Talk:Old Blenheim Bridge

message: The bridge was totally destroyed by flooding as a result of Tropical Storm Irene (4/28/11)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcanidae (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NO LONGER EXISTS

message: The coordinates in the article seem to be pointing at a bridge which looks like it (1) still exists, and (2) isn't covered.  I think I see, in the Google Map, what looks like messed up abutments to the south.  Am I missing something? - Denimadept (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a guess that the above mention abutments are where the bridge was. - Denimadept (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: We could use more information on this subject.  I've added a section for it, but I'm not happy with what I wrote.  I left it there as a starting point. - Denimadept (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing that!  I have expanded it slightly.  Per the sources you added and what I added, there should be a contract running for the construction, and construction should have begun by now, but that is not sourced.  The lede states that construction has started.  I assume that's true, but is there any source which could be added to support that?  Note a photo showing construction activity as of a certain date could be used to support the fact. --doncram 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I asked the anon user if he had any sources, but you know how that's likely to work.  I searched for such references, but the newer of the two I found, as you can see, is from last year.  In past situations like this, I generally sprout a new article for a new bridge, and link them together, but circumstances differ.  The new one is apparently going to be a very similar design to the old one, so a new article may not be needed.  Without a new source, we don't know for sure what was approved and what is being built.  If it's the same thing built again, a new article may not be appropriate.  I doubt they're going to build something completely else since if the coordinates I guessed are correct, and so far as I can tell, they likely are, making a newer design would be silly since there's already such a bridge about 50 feet down stream.  That gives me the thought that if they do rebuild it, it'll be as similar to the previous structure as they can get it, or what's the point?  What I don't understand is why such a bridge would be so expensive.  The point of wooden covered bridges is that they're CHEAP and easy to build. - Denimadept (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't grok the reconstruction cost either.  The original cost $6,000 i think it was.  The point of the reconstruction is absolutely to re-create the original as closely as possible, as explained by the engineer involved who said it should have the same look and feel.  The bridge is totally not needed for vehicular traffic, which has not been allowed since 1932 or so.  All these comments based on sources cited in the article now.  I expect that some newspaper columnists oughta comment on the cost.  There are comments arguing against the expenditure in response to one or more of the newspaper articles about it, but I haven't seen a journalist or columnist complaining about the cost.  From the point of view of Schoharie county locals, the more expenditure the better probably, in terms of economic activity which is 100% funded by federal and state funds. --doncram 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: The New Bridge in Paris is now the oldest bridge in that city.  The Old Blenheim Bridge is gone.  The replacement should probably lose the "Old".  In which case, we should rename this article. - Denimadept (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If a different name emerges in common usage (and in sources) then a rename can be considered.  But the article is focused on the original Old Blenheim Bridge, and probably should remain that way, with only a section on the replacement, which is naturally subsidiary.  Perhaps eventually a section on the new one could become so large as to justify splitting out to a new article, but it is so related, as a copy, that I can't imagine separating it.  A faithful reproduction on the same location is most efficiently covered together with the original.  I am thinking of the original+reconstructed Camillus Aqueduct, on the Erie Canal, as a similar example also in NYS. --doncram 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'm just bringing it up.  I don't expect the new bridge to be an exact copy.  I expect they'll add some steel reinforcing in an out of view place, for current standards. - Denimadept (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename?