Talk:Stockport Viaduct

Speedy Deletion Arguement

Please keep as i'm going to make the page more relevant with information on it. The viaduct is a landmark of stockport and deserves a place on wikipedia. Aaron Allen (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the speedy deletion has been removed? Aaron Allen (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, people are very quick to delete stuff on here...Paulbrock (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help :) Aaron Allen (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Help : Contents

How do I add a contents to this article? Aaron Allen (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Add another section or two and it will automatically appear. Paulbrock (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

I note that the page is a work in progress, so I am holding off adding material at the moment. But I was looking for info on the topic. The following may be useful.

1. L.S. Lowry connections [1], Lowry sketching the viaduct, sketches auctioned. viaduct painting stolen, [2]
2. Who designed it? "Designed by George Watson Buck", [3]
3. Opened on June 4th 1840 Ref "The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland Practically Described" on google books [4]
4. Coords? 53°24'34"N 2°9'56"W according to Wikimapia. Use the coord template.
5. Widening in 1890. The widening of Edgley Viaduct, Stockport, about 1890. Note they call it Edgley Viaduct?
6. More history

"The first section of the Manchester & Birmingham to be completed ran from a temporary station in Manchester, at Travis Street, to a temporary station at Heaton Norris, on the Lancashire side of the Stockport viaduct. Opened for traffic on 4 June 1840, this short line was an immediate success, carrying nearly 2,000 passengers a day during the second half of 1840. Two years later, on 10 May 1842, train services were extended from Heaton Norris to Sandbach and the permanent Manchester station in Store Street was opened. " [5] [6]

1. Which act of parliament? discussion. It still does not seem clear exactly which Act they are talking about.
2. "New Perspectives in British Cultural History" Rosalind Crone David Gange and Katy Jones, [7] about the impact of the viaduct. See also picture on p 22 from an old book. (is it out of copyright?).
3. Dimensions: Quotes "an article, which can be seen in the covered market, on the wall of The Coffee Pot cafe, which is entitled "Dimensions of the Stockport Viaduct", which gives the statistics for the original viaduct," [8], "Railway was laid on the 10th of March, 1839, and was completed December 22nd, 1840, at a cost of £70,000." (No contradiction i've seen this site myself i'm sure it says the first brick was laid?)."The extreme length is 1,786 feet; it has 22 semicircular arches, each of 63 ft. span, four of 20ft. span, and two at each abutment. The height (to the surface of the rails) is 111 feet from the bed of the river,"

1. Restoration and floodlit [9]
2. Heritage Book 2 Stockport Viaduct [10] Stockport Viaduct so good they built it twice". Worth getting a copy perhaps.
3. Stockport and District Heritage Magazine. [11] Current issue has an article on widening the viaduct. Nice picture [12].
4. There is a book "Holland, Vincent.The Stockport railway viaduct : and the Manchester & Birmingham Railway Company.", so surely worth getting. I found it mentioned here station with links to library holdings. The blogger could not find details of the act either. Billlion (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work.... the designer is listed on Wikipedia at George W. Buck.Paulbrock (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1890 Section

What was wrong with this section? Aaron Allen (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an edit conflict I think. Maybe we had better use the "inuse" tag. Billlion (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another pic

. Not very good though.Paulbrock (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Better one at: [13] Paulbrock (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have one with a very long view to give a sense of the scale of it.Billlion (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in the area, at least at the weekend I am there. I'll try get a decent one :) Aaron Allen (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Azallen, the new section on the widening looks like a copy vio from [14] Could you rewrite it in your own words please? Also I think some of the bits in History looked like a direct copy (are they still?). Billlion (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So how long is it???

I've read the article and although the viaduct's height is mentioned there doesn't seem to be any mention of the length. So how long is this viaduct? I have always wondered this on journeys into Manchester but why doesn't this article tell us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xania (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To state how long it is you need to define where it begins and ends. It would be good to have the length from, say, the centre of the first arch to the centre of the last (even though the arches get progressively smaller at the ends).

1890 widening

Could somebody find out (and insert) whether the two most easterly tracks or the two most westerly are the ones added in 1890 when the width was doubled?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockport Viaduct. 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/20110719185651/http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/ to http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edgeley Viaduct

User:Adswood is repeatedly removing a reference in the lead to the alternative name of Edgeley Viaduct, which I believe is the original name of the viaduct. The information is cited, thus: "Perhaps the best comparison for the viaduct is the Stockport Viaduct, or the Edgeley Viaduct as it was then known." Adswood, please explain why you think this information should be removed. You appear to be in breach of WP:3RR, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. As a newly registered user, it behoves you to follow the guidelines. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

User Dave.Dunford , " BELIEVES " , that the original name of , " Stockport Viaduct " , was , " Edgelely Viaduct " . I believe the exact opposite to be true , i.e. , that , " Stockport Viaduct " was never , ever , ever , originally known as " Edgeley Viaduct " .

Dave Dunsford refers to a , " Throw Away " , remark , by a member of the Public called , " NIEL MULLINIEUX ", from his article for the Marple Local History Society , who , casually , states , without any evidence , whatsoever , ; "

"Perhaps the best comparison for the viaduct is the Stockport Viaduct, or the Edgeley Viaduct as it was then known." .

NIEL MULLINIEUX , provides no , Historical , Factual , Official , Documentary Evidence , or , Original Published Newspaper Reports , from the time of the Construction , or , the Opening , of the Viaduct . It is just a , totally , and utterley , unsubstantiated , " Throw Away " , remark , by an unknown Person , from a very small , relatively unknown , Local Historical Society .

I , ( Adswood ) , on the other hand , ( a Railway Enthusiast for over 52+ years ) , have lived in Stockport for all of the 65+ years of my Life , and have , NEVER , EVER , EVER , heard , ANYONE , refer to , " Stockport Viaduct " , as , " Edgelely Viaduct " .

Neither , have I ever , ever , in 65+ years , seen , any , Historical , Factual , Official , Documentary Evidence , or , Original Published Newspaper Reports , from the time of the Construction , or , the Opening , of the Viaduct , refering to , " Stockport Viaduct " , as , " Edgelely Viaduct " .

Just because some , unknown , person , " STATES " , something , without any evidence , in a virtually unknown article , for a relatively unknown , Local Historical Society , does not make it a , FACT , or the , TRUTH .

This will just , MISLEAD and MISINFORM , future generations !

Either , provide , Historical , Factual , Official , Documentary Evidence , or , Original Published Newspaper Reports , from the time of the Construction , or , the Opening , of the Stockport Viaduct , to substantiate your Claim , or , do not amend my Edit again , removing the , unsubstantiated , reference to , " Edgelely Viaduct " ! ! !

Signed , Adswood , ~ ~ ~ ~ .

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adswood (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. It does seem the evidence for "Edgeley Viaduct" is limited, but the onus is on you to understand Wikipedia's policies and procedures properly before editing. There are processes in place for resolving differences of opinion. As well as not breaching the three-revert rule, you really should assume good faith and discuss your edits on the relevant Talk Page if they are questioned, rather than embarking on an edit war and responding aggressively based only on your own understanding. This could have been resolved more quickly and amicably had you followed Wikipedia procedures. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

An additional and more authorities source, quoting local newspapers from the era of its construction, has been put into place today. Further citations of the use of Edgeley Viaduct can be supplied. Kyteto (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that mention of the Edgley name, despite being mentioned by three separate sources (and more could be added) was removed, and restored once again. How many sources are needed for it to be accepted that this name had been used? Kyteto (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Edgeley Viaduct is not correct. I can't find it mentioned in books which are generally the most reliable sources. Francis Whishaw writing close to the time it was built in 1842 in The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland Practically Described and Illustrated (301-306) calls it the Stockport Viaduct. Other book references also refer to it as Stockport.

I also don't think a string of three references in the first sentence of the lede is the way to go either. The lede needs no references if te material is referenced elsewhere. Esemgee (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have spent some time looking at British Newspaper Archives and can find only one mention of Edgeley Viaduct as against hundreds for Stockport. In the three references added to the first paragraph The Architects Website cites three newspaper references none of which refer to Edgeley (only the title mentions Edgeley) so that can be disgarded, one is the title of a photograph and the other a local history article with no sources. As I said book sources use Stockport. Mentions of Edgeley are so peripheral that I think it should be removed and if no one can come up with a good reason for keeping it then I will remove it. Esemgee (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The disputed opening sentence was "Stockport Viaduct, originally the Edgeley Viaduct, carries...". May I suggest "Stockport Viaduct (occasionally referred to as the Edgeley Viaduct) carries..."? The wording and parentheses simultaneously include and de-emphasise the contentious 'Edgeley' component. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's diplomatic but doesn't solve the problem. It appears to be so peripheral that a mention in the very first sentence gives it importance that is not justified by reliable sources. I see it has been re-added along with the poor sourcing without explanation as to why. Esemgee (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the compromise solution proposed by Feline Hymnic. If not in the lede, maybe somewhere further down. Something of a storm in a teacup. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the proposed comprise by Feline Hymnic. The text was only recently copy-edited from "alternatively known as" to "originally the", which was unusual in my view as the existing sources, questioned as they are, didn't even assert as much. I do agree with the principle that the lead typically should be citation-free, it has only become citation heavy on this sole point in an attempt to have the edit-warring sock puppeteer to see that his claims that only a single amateur website ever used the term did not align with reality - in the long run, once he had settled down, I myself would have advocated for their removal as no longer needed; perhaps relocating them to the info box which also has a field for the alternative name (Ironically, the sockpuppeting was only targeting the lead but overlooking the exact same name being mentioned in the info box - may as well be inconsistent as well! :) Kyteto (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I prefer Dave.Dunford's idea of removing it from the lede as it's of peripheral significance and I don't think it should go in the infobox either. By the way it takes two to edit war and you have not explained why these sources are reliable. 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Esemgee: was it your intention to remove all reference to the Edgeley name from the article text (apart from the References)? If so, I'm not sure that's in the spirit of the compromise proposed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well actually it wasn't, but when I went through the article I didn't find a suitable spot, can you find one? Esemgee (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How about the infobox - it does have a field specifically for alternative names, and it is a (lesser used) alternative name - nobody's arguing that it is as widely used as 'Stockport Viaduct', but we have, amongst several sources, a government-funded science and technology website mentioning the name. To purge it entirely is not only throwing the proposed compromise out the window, its spitting in the face of consensus as well. Kyteto (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert on infoboxes but like the lede, should they only contain material referenced elsewhere? Websites are not necessarily the best sources and a photo caption is well, just that. Wikipedia should not be giving prominence to something so marginal, and infoboxes are prominent. Why are you so attached to it? I've seen a single reference to something else but I'm not itching to include it, it's about judgement. By the way I have already said I looked for somewhere and invited suggestions so please assume good faith. Esemgee (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note my objection to the false equivocation regarding the edit warring - when six individual long term editors (myself, Feline Hymnic, Dave.Dunford, Ahmetlii, Treedrop, Leaky caldron) are reverting the removal of cited info by a new editor on the sole basis of "I'm an old local and I've never heard this name" (completely against the principle of WP:V, using sources rather than 'personal knowledge'/'what I've heard') who has since resorted to sockpuppeting under IPs and breaching 3RR (neither of which have been done by any of the five reverting-to-the-status-quo individuals), pulling a "both sides are equal" argument is a little oversimplistic and only legitimises behaviour which at this point has already covers two separate block-worthy offences if enforcement was pursued. Kyteto (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As for why are those sources acceptable; firstly, I'd like to point out that in the latest revision of the article (last edited by you, you have them citing other pieces of info - if they weren't suitable for this name, why aren't you questioning their use on any other counts - it's a little inconsistent to edit as if they're fine for other points, but not this one for some arbitrary reason? Also, you're the editor who changed the text from "alternatively known as" to "originally the", can I ask for your sourcing of this claim/why you did it if there was no sourcing for it? But to more directly answer your question; scienceandsociety.co.uk is a collection of visual material from the Science Museum Group e.g. the organisation that runs some of the most famous museums in the world - the fact that they use this name, considering the reputation of the collection's source, ought to be pretty substantial that this name is not only used by amatures. The Manchester Group of the Victorian Society (the group behind manchestervictorianarchitects.org.uk) is not exactly what I'd refer to as inconsequential either; the parent, The Victorian Society, is a registered charity with a nationwide scope, routinely being invited to give lectures and work with historians at universities. Both sources are solid steps over the main remover's argument of "I live here and I never heard that name, so it must not exist", which quite frankly, is not a sound argument - many people would be unable to name Michael Collins as the third astronaut on Apollo 11, but I doubt many would find it right to purge mentions of Apollo 11 from his Wiki article under the basis of "I've never heard that name". A person's lack of knowledge does not make that information wrong, that's why we use sources to begin with - which brings me around to why you ever changed the text to "originally the" - my original instinct at the time you did it had been to assume good faith rather than to revert it as an uncited editorialisation, but if we're exploring each other's reasoning so... Kyteto (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to read all that. I first just copyedited the article because some of it was a bit long winded and oddly phrased. Then I noticed that someone thought the Mersey was tidal(!) and that the architect designed a bid instead of a viaduct and thought that was odd so I looked at the source which had been interpreted wrongly so I then thought other things might not be correct. The Man architect source is just copies of contemporary news articles, the Edgeley viaduct is in it's title so it can be used. The photograph is interesting that's why it should stay, not necessarily the caption. I find the attitude that ips and locals can't possibly be correct is weird. Local knowledge isn't always written down or wrong and although some editors have bees in their bonnet about all sorts of things, I think in this case he was right despite going about it the wrong way. It's just judgement about what to put in or leave out. As it's peripheral I'd leave it out so as not to give it undue importance. Esemgee (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Mersey has the second highest tidal range in the UK... Not sure what that's got to do with alternative name though, irrelevant to the issue IMO. I don't always make the best wording choices, I've always admitted that. But I think you're using my faults on topics nothing to do with this one to avoid answers for your edits: Why did you change "alternatively known as" to "originally the"? Kyteto (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"I find the attitude that ips and locals can't possibly be correct is weird" that's not I said, strawmanning my words (while not bothering to read them properly by your own admission) is hardly the example of good faith. What I'm stating is, the sockpuppeter is not using sources or evidence for their assertions, only personal knowledge; that's specifically against Wikipedia:No original research; "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". We should never be using original research; our material is supposed to be based upon published fact, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. When it comes to OR verses V - I'll take V any day, it's policy to do so. You should be aware of this too. Kyteto (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And you are using my undoubted faults to avoid the issue too. I actually thought that as the line ended in Edgeley during construction maybe that is what it was, but on further investigation it isn't, so I was wrong, no big deal, but with the good intention of trying to make the article readable. I only read the talk page when I edited it and wasn't aware of the article history. I am telling you why I investigated the name, tidal, misinterpreted a source, strange wording. What more do you want. I still don't know why you are so attached to it. Esemgee (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not just disputing his revision/denial of the name because it's OR. Look at his original post/reasoning here, much of It has already been invalidated. The claim that only a single insignificant local historical society used the name has been soundly proven wrong via additional sourcing from national-level government-funded sources affiliated with some of the highest historical institutions and universities in the country. He claimed it was never used in any newspaper articles, yet your own relatively quick search did find a reference within a single archive (the British Newspaper Archives is not comprehensive and does not include many of the smaller newspapers; I wrote my thesis around months of attending various newspaper archives in person across the country, so I have been down the road in the flesh) so it proves he either wasn't looking particularly hard if he claims there was no such references, or hadn't looked seriously at all. That's more to the point, combined with the OR policy, as to why I object - What was claimed to never feature in a newspaper has done so, what was claimed to be only found within a single irrelevant local society has proved to have other mentions by websites associated with the largest museum association in the nation. The argument he has put forward is defunct and is logically invalid; in a single sentence to summarise why is has been rejected by me: multiple claims have proven to be false and policy on OR says to overlook it irrespective of that. The facts that the reasoning has multiple inaccuracies or that disruptive editing tactics have been used is only the cherry on the cake as to why it shouldn't trump sources. You can ignore my reasoning, as that is your prerogative, but you cannot claim that I didn't try to answer your demands - if you cannot put in the effort to read, well, that's not on me. Kyteto (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

" actually thought that as the line ended in Edgeley during construction maybe that is what it was" Can I ask that you refrain from such 'best guesses' in the future; we're not supposed to guess at content. As per Wikipedia:No original research; "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". Do not guess at facts, read the sources, and do not extend beyond them. There's no point copyediting something to make it neater and easier to read if it's no longer verifiably correct as per the sourcing. This ought to be a core concept of any edit made to the article space. If you want to understand why I am attached to the issue, read the four sentences prior to this one until the content sinks in; it's literally right there. Kyteto (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

When you can write in plain English and not misinterpret sources you can patronise me all you like if it makes you feel better :-) Mountain / molehill, kettle / pan as my grandpa would say. I'm done with this conversation. Esemgee (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had made any misinterpretations related to this alternative naming issue, if/when you do stop by, could you specify them please? Hope this isn't just another withering reference to tides or bids, as I cannot see how either are relevant to this naming issue. Kyteto (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To be concise about my personal feelings on the overall issue, I believe Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the guiding light here. It essentially does not matter if the sockpuppeter's opinion is true or false, as we don't include (or exclude) content based upon its truthfulness, but on its verifiability. There's enough sources, with enough legitimacy, to say that this was a verifiable alternative name, IMO. I strongly advocate for the proposed compromise, as originally proposed. Kyteto (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)