Talk:High Level Bridge, River Tyne

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Newcastle-Gateshead RDT.

On 19 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from High Level Bridge to High Level Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne. The result of the discussion was moved.

Authority of article

Two points:

1: "The first major example of a wrought iron tied-arch structure"? Er, the main members are cast iron.

Yup. That came from "Bridging the Years", an Institution of Civil Engineers publication. YMMV, of course. They thought it of moment that it was the first major example of a bridge tied with wrought iron. You, in your wisdom, do not seem to see this as being of moment. The article body discusses the use of wrought iron, but has pretty much lost the important sense that this bridge was innovative (i.e. the first major) in its use of that material. On the whole, I don't find that an improvement, and for me, the lede is now a blander thing than it was.

-Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2: The idea is that we are writing a third-order document based on second-order sources. The main description of the bridge is a straight crib from "The penny cyclopædia". Leaving aside whether a "penny" publication is a reliable authority, copying another third order source doesn't really cut it.

Afterbrunel (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one will sensibly argue against suggestions for article improvement. Your apparent prejudice about tertiary sources is not shared in WP:WPNOTRS, which though identifying the desirability of secondary sources, states "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.". Clearly you can argue the toss over whether "The penny cyclopædia" is reputable, although I see you want to have your cake and eat it: criticise the publication without stating your grounds, but suggest we "pass over" that criticism, as if it is not up for discussion. And whereas, as inferred by my first sentence, improvement is always desirable, the quoted segment seemed to me at the time a reliable and a well stated description of the bridge.

I think what pisses me off most, and I grant I'm being over-sensitive, is well meaning people who wander along, late, and launch criticisms of work done in the past. Here's the deal: we use the sources we have to hand, and the limited time we have available to improve wikipedia. It would be ideal if we always had access to great secondary sources, but more often than not we do not, and instead scrabble around trying to make the best of what we can find. And we don't have unlimited time, and so sometimes take the decision to quote useful content rather than rewrite it. The logic of your "does not cut it" argument is that it would be better not to have had any description of the bridge at all, than to have employed the quote.

It is possible to go about the process of improving the encyclopedia without seeking to shoot down the work of your colleagues. I hope you learn that technique, if only so that you avoid the sort of embittered screed which I've just launched in your direction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a shot at improving this article. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Level Bridge. 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/20041101191100/http://www.newcastle-arts-centre.co.uk/high-%20level.htm to http://www.newcastle-arts-centre.co.uk/high-%20level.htm

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) 15:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to High Level Bridge, River Tyne. Clear consensus to move. Alternative with comma has more support than the one with brackets. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– This article is not getting a majority of pageviews. Move dab page to main title per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to High Level Bridge (Newcastle upon Tyne), particularly given the descriptive nature of the title, and the fact that another topic that is identically named but for a disambiguator gets almost as many hits. BD2412 T 05:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to High Level Bridge (Newcastle upon Tyne), In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the one in Edmonton gets 3,135 compared to 3,834 for this one and the standard disambiguation in England is generally comma even if this applies to multiple bridges. I'd note however the bridge(s) are partly in Gateshead district and this seems to be the only in Tyne and Wear so I'd move to High Level Bridge, Tyne and Wear or if consensus is for brackets High Level Bridge (Tyne and Wear) since although Gateshead may be thought of as being in Newcastle its a separate district and the BUA is "Tyneside". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to High Level Bridge, River Tyne to match Swing Bridge, River Tyne a few hundred metres away. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support this option for consistency. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have made a requested move for Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne → Queen Elizabeth II Metro Bridge, see Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne. All the other Tyne crossings appear to be unambiguously named. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever the title is, it should use comma rather than parenthetical disambiguation, as is usual for structures in the UK and Commonwealth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.