Talk:Rosendale Trestle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ragetest 25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article move

This article was moved from Rosendale trestle to Rosendale Trestle Bridge. I've moved it to Rosendale Trestle for the following reasons:

1. Reason given for initial move was nondescript, though I believe it was because most other bridge articles capitalize the word "bridge".
2. After reviewing recent sources, I believe the term "Rosendale Trestle" is now the appropriate and common name for this structure. Previously, it had been referred to in a generic manner as the Rosendale trestle, a viaduct, a railroad bridge, etc. In the last few years, however, the term "Rosendale Trestle" seems to have evolved into its common name (though it would probably be alright to refer to is as a generic "trestle" within the article).

--Gyrobo (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported statements in Modern Use section

The paragraph in the Modern Use section starting with "After Rahl failed to pay $13,716 in property taxes..." contains an obvious bias against the Ways & Means chairman that is not adequately sourced. Perhaps the accusations are correct, but the cited sources either don't address it or do not appear to be reliable. I'm surprised that this made it past a Featured Article review. Indyguy (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The source immediately after that part of the sentence clearly states: "The properties, located in the towns of Rosendale and Ulster, landed in April's foreclosure auction after owner John Rahl failed to pay taxes for three years. He owed $13,716, records show." There is no mention at all in either the article or the source about any Ways and Means chairman. --Gyrobo (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been here in a while, just read the rest of that section again. Looks like that information was added by an IP long after this because a featured article. I'll clean up now. --Gyrobo (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to actually pop out now, just don't have the time to compare this with the old diffs to see what was altered. Could someone else please look at this? --Gyrobo (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone, presumably John Rahl, made a series of edits in the Modern Use section, all on January 23, 2015. How did this become a Featured Article with a paragraph full of his personal scribblings in it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.172.221.242

I have trimmed the paragraph back to the essentials and removed the parts suggesting improper behaviour, which do not belong here. Comments? Bencherlite^Talk 12:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please update this

"The surface of the walkway will be either wood or concrete" Which is it? This article is not our best work and should not have been chosen as TFA. --John (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hastily done. I agree that this article is in poor shape for a TFA. SounderBruce 20:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Really?

The bridge, while remaining in use, was rebuilt by the King Bridge Company between 1895 and 1896;... The renovation raised the bridge's piers by 8 feet (2.4 m)

That was quite a feat! How did they manage to raise the height of the bridge while trains were crossing it? --John (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing "continually" rather than "continuously" was meant; I'll go make the change. Thanks for the heads up at WT:TFA as well. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular bridge, but this doesn't sound particularly implausible to me, even though it sounds counter-intuitive; Richmond Bridge in London was cut in half lengthwise, the two halves moved apart and a third carriageway added in the middle while remaining in use, for instance. The article doesn't say if the bridge was double or single-tracked (a major omission), but if it were the former it's perfectly feasible that they rebuilt one side at a time, keeping trains running bi-directionally over the side not under reconstruction. – iridescent 2 03:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thought. From the pictures I had assumed it was single track. That is somewhat of a major omission when you mention it. --John (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rosendale Trestle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006051216/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=9703 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=9703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)