Talk:Chain of Rocks Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Illinois.

This bridge also serves as the site for several public annual events. I think it would be useful to list this here as well. Rklawton 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Chain of Rocks, Missouri is not near the Chain of Rocks bridge. I don't believe there is a connection between them. This page says that the town was named for a chain of limestone rocks, and implies that they are in the Cuivre River, near which the city is located. Anyone have any evidence of a link between the 2 names? I've removed the reference. If someone can provide any evidence, the link can be added back. --Booch 18:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection between this bridge and the geographic feature it's named after and that town and the feature after which it is named. There probably shouldn't be a reference to the town in the article given that the only relationship is their name, unless, perhaps, to redirect the misguided. But that's doubtful, IMHO. --Kbh3^rdtalk 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Both the city and the bridge are named from the same geological feature. Indeed, the bridge is only a few hundred meters upriver from the feature. A reference in the bridge article to that feature seems important. Should the bridge link to the city? They aren't contiguous, and one isn't named for the other, so I agree on that point. Rklawton 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Regretably, Kbh3rd doesn't know what he's talking about. He makes two contentions:

One: Bridge/Geologic feature connection: This link shows the connection and provides some nice illustrations. [1]. You can see the one from the other. Therefore the bridge should reference the geologic feature from whence it got its name. Rklawton 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Two: Village/Geologic feature connection: The article cited by Booch isn't clearly written. If you've been to Chain of Rocks (village), you'll know the Cuivre River is a wee bit bigger then a creek and doesn't run over limestone. The Chain of Rocks across the Mississippi, on the other hand, runs over the chain of limestone rocks as noted in Booch's link. In the link I provided, you see more detail:

During the last ice age, the Mississippi River was re-routed from its original channel in soft river sediment (farther to the east in present day Illinois) to its present channel over resistant (mainly limestone) bedrock. The river has yet to wear down the bedrock and this feature is still a rough spot in the river.[2]

It makes no sense that a village named "Chain of Rocks" wouldn't take its name from the area's most noticable geological feature that also just happens to have exactly the same name. Rklawton 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's possible the town was named for the Mississippi feature, but my initial concern with the town article was that there is some distance between the two and it would be nice to have this information if possible. But the pictures of the bridge shouldn't be there. Chain of Rocks Bridge is in northern St. Louis, and the town is some distance (about thirty miles) and two counties away. It's possible whoever settled the town named it for that feature (I've seen stranger origins for location names in Missouri), but the pictures seem to suggest that its located next to the bridge.Rt66lt 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the bridge photo is no longer in the Chain of Rocks, Missouri, article, I'm assuming all is now as it should be. Rklawton 05:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the site and it's not completely accurate. It list Chain of Rocks as a "village", but it's listed in the Official State Manual as unincorporated.Rt66lt 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)