Talk:Ironbridge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ironbridge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shropshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire 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.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

IronbridgeG (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Untitled

Note that iron bridges have existed in China since 65AD -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but those bridges were much smaller. The Iron Bridge was the first large iron bridge. Oggy 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that it was primarily built as an advertisement, rather than as a useful bridge. Is this true? Justinc 14:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if place grew around the bridge, that would make sense.

If not, what was the place called before the bridge? (Middle of nowhere would have no real use)

Dean Earley 21:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its a tiny place as far as I remember, very much middle of nowhere. A few houses at most, now all connected with tourism. But its a long time since I was there so my memory is a bit vague...Justinc 00:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no settlement there before the bridge - the village of Ironbridge grew up once the Iron Bridge was built. David 09:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a "settlement/Town/Village" before the IronBridge was built.Is made up of Madeley Wood, Hodge Bower & Coalbrookdale.

Split article

I felt that the bridge itself needed a seperate article because it and the town of Ironbridge are completely seperate. Was the expand tag meant for expansion of information about the bridge or about the town? Oggy 15:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try removing the expand tag & see what happens. There isn't a lot more one can say about the town... The Singing Badger 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Iron Bridge

It seems that at one point these were one article, and I have to say it's confusing to find them separated. Ironbridge really doesn't contain any information beyond the bridge itself, and it's odd to see what looks like the same article listed twice in categories. –Ryan McDaniel 07:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them in my view. --Jason J Smith 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - specifically, The Iron Bridge should be merged into Ironbridge, not vice versa (the merger label is unclear). The Singing Badger 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. The Iron Bridge and the town Ironbridge are completely different. The town has a lot more to offer than just the bridge (although it seems many visit purely for the bridge). The amount of information contained in The Iron Bridge is far too much to include in an article about the town. It is however clear that the pages and categories need some slight tweaking, especially including more information about the town itself, but this is far less drastic than merging the two articles back together. Oggy 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's "a lot more to offer" about the town, can you add it? As long as both articles are worth keeping in their own right, I agree there's no point in merging them. As it stands, though, the town's article is pretty weak, and half of it refers back to the bridge anyway. –Ryan McDaniel 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge - one article is about the bridge, the other about the settlement. Two different things, although connected. David 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the bridge is certainly now established as an article (and is part of the History of Science WikiProject). The town's article has also improved over the past few days. Could we maybe remove the merge tags and perhaps add an expand tag to the articles? Oggy 08:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New merger

I do not agree with this and i agree with what someone else has put i.e. one is the town, the other is the bridge and so the articles should remain different. However, the settlement article should focus more on the effects on the town and the bridge should focus on construction, influence and status. Simply south 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree either, as above. I think we've been through this discussion many times, however I'll be happy to listen if the user who proposed the merge would like to make some comments on either talk page in support of the merger. Oggy 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw with the articles was too much of the same content, same illustrations, etc. My mistake was in assuming these were both about the bridge (I was working on an article that referenced both articles). My merge suggestion was too hasty and I apologize for any inconvenience. I have clarified very explicity with disambiguation statements at the beginning of the articles and removed an excessive bridge image from the settlement article and will correct the referring article.

Here is the content of discussions with Simply south, posted here (with some embarrasment on my part, owing only to my not seeing the difference between the site article and the bridge article) at his request:

Do you have any reasoning with the new merger? Simply south 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The why part or the how part or which title should be the principal? Leonard G. 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Simply south 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why: Two articles covering the same subject should be merged, and if then overlong should be split into sub-topic articles.

How: The best of content and prose should be selected from each article, without loss of significant information, with rewriting as needed to ensure consistant style. Resultant article should be properly wikified.

Which Title: The most likely search term should be used for the article title, with other titles being redirects

- Leonard G. 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put this on Talk:Ironbridge#New merger? Simply south 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merrythought

The article states that the Merrythought factory closed in 2006. Is this correct? Or is the factory still operational? Sak31122 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now closed down. David 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To update, it was brought back into use by the company in 2010 and is a thriving if niche business today - see wiki article Merrythought.Cloptonson (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The borough of Telford and Wrekin ... is a New Town?

The introductory paragraph says:

"It (Ironbridge) lies in the parish of The Gorge, in what is now called the borough of Telford and Wrekin - a New Town, which began to be "built" 40 years ago."

Is the borough of Telford and Wrekin really a New Town? Citation needed. Thanks. --Lepton6 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Town Status

The article states that Ironbridge is a town, but I am certain that it is not - I'm not enough of an expert to quote definitions, but I know from past experience (a friend and I once visited the 22 towns of Shropshire in a day (he provided the list), and Ironbridge certainly wasn't one of them). Hopefully someone with more knowledge can back me up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingwakabungya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section reads as OR

The first paragraph of the history section is entirely unreferenced and reads as OR. Seems like the editor personally objects to the idea that the area was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Fair enough. But since it is part of a World Heritage Site based on its contribution to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution the idea that it’s not the birthplace may well be challenged and by Wikipedia policy it then needs reliable, 2nd Party sources to support the statements made. See WP:NOR for information. Dakinijones (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]