Talk:Canton Viaduct

nrhp infobox

I don't expect that adding a standard NRHP infobox based on the National Register Information System database to the article would help, as there is a big infobox already developed. Here it is, though, in case there is any info from NRIS in it that could be used in the article, perhaps. doncram (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Canton Viaduct
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Location	Neponset and Walpole Sts., Canton, Massachusetts
Built	1834
Architect	McNeill,William Gibbs; Dodd & Baldwin
NRHP reference No.	84002870
Added to NRHP	September 20, 1984

Lots of the existing infobox needs to get merged into the article proper IMO. Infobox is supposed to be quick-summary and key data, not verbose prose with lots of additional detail about each value field. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In general I would agree, but i think the big infobox is fine in this article. I think this article is getting excessive scrutiny from other editors, given that it is a new article by a new wikipedia editor, and it is not being nominated for a wikipedia Featured Article! If the new editor would like comments, they can be requested by use of the wp:PR peer review process. The article is already extremely way better than just having an unimproved stub NRHP article, like for most NRHP sites in all of List of RHPs in MA or in the local area to this one.  :) doncram (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly! This was meant as a "things to work on by somebody sometime to make it even better", not "WE MUST FIX THIS NOW!!!!!". This article fits some of my interests but not my expertise, so I'm glad it's being written and am happy to help clean it up further. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ed Costanza, aka Canton Viaduct and webmaster of www.cantonviaduct.us. As you can tell, I am new to Wiki and I am trying to learn as I go so please bear with me. I have been studying this bridge for years and noticed how poorly it was represented here so I decided to improve the existing information. I thank you all for the constructive criticism but please refrain from sarcastic remarks as I have devoted much time to this project and don't pretend to be nearly as well versed on Wiki as you. Thanks, Ed (edcostanza@yahoo.com)

We really do appreciate your contributions and continued work here and this structure is quite interesting! One of the things many of us do is annotate our changes with an Edit summary explaining the reason for a change or the goal of a layout-adjustment and/or giving pointers to the content or style guidelines for articles. Unfortunately, the field has a limited length:( Let us know which acronyms aren't familiar and we can dig up links to the pages explaining them. There are also some predefined notes you may see that are standard flags for "work needed here but I don't have time to deal further with it now". Wikipedia is collaborative and articles take time to develop, so please don't feel that these are criticism of what is done, but rather as ways to improve the further or make it more closely follow existing standards. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Page structure

This article lacks the benefits of an introductory section as described in WP:Lead. Page structure should generally follow WP:Layout. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another fine observation, which would be more relevant if the new editor writing it indicated he/she would like to receive comments. Again, I am not sure why this article is getting so much scrutiny. doncram (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comrade Doncram, kindly assume good faith, or you will make it seem as if no good deed truly does go unpunished. Why discourage collaborative support (some of which you yourself have brought to bear)? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i do assume good faith in your and others' efforts here, but I eventually became uncomfortable about how Canton V. might be perceiving all this, given lack of comment by Canton here on the Talk page. I guess the interactions via successive edits to the article are going okay, though, given no explicit complaints posted publicly here or elsewhere by Canton. doncram (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

With all due respect, I believe that six of the eight images currently in the gallery, of arches elsewhere, belong in another article, perhaps on architectural arches, that can be linked to, if not already linked. My opinion on this is not the last word, of course, but the inclusion here can be seen as tangential and distracting for the reader focusing on the Canton Viaduct as such. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of galleries and making the article hard to follow, it's easier to read and flows better (in my opinion) if major article content is in the article itself rather that being placed in a narrow caption region. In general, images should support the content, not be the document structure or primary focus. For example, if one wants to read about the construction, one would probably look for a section with a name like "Construction" and there find writing and images about it (is why I moved the image there, and why I have previously noted and worked to reduce the verbage in the infobox). Previously (and now creeping again) there is becoming a catch-all gallery of all sorts of images, and the actual article content becomes an afterthought on them. Based on CV's comments embedded in the page, I think he (she?) is trying to treat this as a firstly as visual publication, a direction with which I disagree. Good to avoid layout messes, but really good to get organized factual content. Fortunately, we have lots of space, and so can organize and write about each topic. We also have lots of other pages on related topics, so if there is a lot to be said about kinds of viaducts and comparing different support systems, well that's not specific to this viaduct, so it could be off-loaded onto the viaduct page. Lots of detail about "not what this page is about" makes it harder for a reader to find that info at all. This is indeed a fairly unique viaduct design, so talking about this design here makes a lot of sense, and I'm glad someone wrote about it! Talking about a different type of design on a different viaduct in a different that just happens to be from the same era that already has a whole page to talk about it? Off-topic. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Image sources

Many of the images do not state their source (they state that they are Public Domain, but not specifically where they came from). Please do not ignore or simply remove the the tagging of those articles as needing sources--they really will be deleted if they are marked as needing sources and the actual source isn't provided promptly. For example, rather than just annotating a picture as being a being public-domain work of the United States Federal Government, mention the URL of the web-page from where this actual file was taken, some bibliographic information about a hard-copy that you scanned, or something like that. If an image is from your own personal collection, you are obviously free to release it as Public Domain, but please also annotate the image with an "I took this picture" statement so that others can know that you didn't just "borrow" a file from somewhere and republish it. It's sad-but-true is that some editors will "borrow" non-free material and simply upload it with a "this is free" claim, so we need some traceability to be able to verify those claims. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. They will be deleted in the next week or so unless you provide this required information: specific source where you got each file one you claim is USGovt or specific biblio for each USGovt hard-copy image you scanned. DMacks (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This photo is from the US Library of Congress's American Memory Collection, HABS/HAER: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/displayPhoto.pl?path=/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1240/photos&topImages=076612pr.jpg&topLinks=076612pv.jpg,076612pu.tif&title=9.%20%20Boston%20%26%20Providence%20Railroad%3a%20Canton%20Viaduct.%20Canton,%20Norfolk%20Co.,%20MA.%20(Not%20on%20NEC).%20(See%20HAER%20No.%20MA-27%20for%20further%20documentation%20on%20this%20site).%20%3cbr%3eHAER%20MASS,13-BOST,83-9&displayProfile=0

This photo is legit so to be more specific Don - Why are you attacking me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canton Viaduct (talk • contribs)

We're not attacking you. I'm trying to draw your attention to a critical part of Wikipedia editorial policy, given that you seemed not to realize the urgency and/or meaning of the bot actions and comments or how to solve the problems they were noting. Here's a first-pass list of files you have uploaded that need PD-USGov source info:

• File:Canton Viaduct Wing Wall.PNG
• File:Canton Viaduct Stonework.jpg
• File:Canton Viaduct Cantilever.jpg
• File:Canton Viaduct Specifications.pdf
• File:Canton Viaduct Section.jpg
• File:Canton Viaduct.jpg

based on eyeballing the of all files you've uploaded. Please let us know the best way to alert you to these urgent and mandatory needs so that they can be handled appropriately in the future. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see a possible problem-cause here...the file-upload form makes you pick a copyright but not add other details about it, whereas per WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:V policies, merely stating the copyright is necessary but not sufficient in most cases. {{Information}} is a good template to place on each file's page to contain the necessary additional details. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don - If this was such a critical part of Wikipedia's editorial policy then the fields would be required and since they are not it seems less a Wiki policy and more a DMacks policy.

WP:COPYRIGHT is policy, and it points to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that tells you to include the source. The upload form clearly tells you to include the info, even if it doesn't reject the upload outright if you don't. WP can't force you to follow every rule every time you do everything...that's why we have lots of editors and bots who can fix things and/or tell you what needs to be fixed and why. Yes, it takes time to learn how things work and discover policies and guidelines you didn't even know existed, and to find missing info once you know what's missing. That's why the bots give a week grace period before any deletion would happen--so you can have a chance to resolve the problem. We really are trying to help here, experienced editors and bots alike telling you what's wrong, how to fix it, and where to learn more about the situation. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

List in infobox

Yup, looks like a bug that one can't have just a bulleted list in an infobox field because the first item's asterisk is treated as a real asterisk character instead of as a bullet. So for now we're stuck with <br>, which gives unusual whitespace if there's no other leading text. Affects many infobox types. Will see if infobox experts have a general solution. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)