Talk:Thames and Severn Canal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thames and Severn Canal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Thames and Severn Canal map. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Future use for water distribution?
editCheck this out: Can water network curb shortages?. They seem to be proposing that the canal could be used to send water to London...? — Johan the Ghost seance 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Assessment
edit- Suitably referenced, with inline citations
- Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
- Defined structure, with adequate lead
- Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
- Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images, POI table
- Appropriately understandable
I have assessed this article against these criteria, and am rating it B. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Third or fourth longest?
editWe need to clarify this -- I can't find any definitive list, and the sort function on List_of_canal_tunnels_in_the_United_Kingdom seems to be broken. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that a Wiki list is an acceptable source in itself - refs. are needed.
- Roger Calvert in Inland Waterways of Britain, Ian Allan, 1971 has Sapperton at 3808 yards and Lappal (sic) at 3795 - so of complete tunnels Sapperton is second after Stanedge.
- 86.135.129.109 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Page title and scope
edit"Cotswold Canals" is a neologism coined to refer to the canal link from the Severn (or at least the Sharpness canal) to the Thames. Historically it consists of two canals: the Thames and Severn (T&S, this article) and the Stroudwater Navigation (SW). The restoration project covers both canals, but all the information is in this article... so we end up with a section on "Phase 1b" in this article on one canal, which refers entirely to the restoration of another canal. I suggest this is unsatisfactory. We could:
- (A) Move the restoration information to the relevant canal. Problem: Phase 1a covers parts of both canals.
- (B) Merge the two canal articles. Obvious historical problem.
- (C) Make a separate article "Cotswold Canals restoration" for the whole project. If one day the connection is actually completed, it is likely the name(s) will change, and then there would be an article on the current canal, plus historical articles on the original T&S and SW canals.
I think (C) is the best choice, but invite comments. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- 1a is mostly Thames and Severn though (certainly all the locks are). Thus I'd go with option A for now. 1b is pretty much pure stroudwater.©Geni (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)