This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Ok, thanks for your help :) Aaron Allen ( talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How do I add a contents to this article? Aaron Allen ( talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
"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]
What was wrong with this section? Aaron Allen ( talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
. Not very good though. Paulbrock ( talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Better one at: [13] Paulbrock ( talk) 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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." [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Ok, thanks for your help :) Aaron Allen ( talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How do I add a contents to this article? Aaron Allen ( talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
"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]
What was wrong with this section? Aaron Allen ( talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
. Not very good though. Paulbrock ( talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Better one at: [13] Paulbrock ( talk) 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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." [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)