Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

London, Midland and Scottish Railway

I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Locks on the Hertford Union Canal

You may wish to comment at the above category for discussion; it is currently proposed for deletion. Kbthompson (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Canal basin...

Just bumped into List of canal basins in Great Britain, which I have now identified as a project page. This page, and several others, list [[canal basin]] as [[canal]][[basin]], where 'basin' is a dab page that indicates the closest match is dock (maritime).

At the very least we should have canal basin as a redirect somewhere, and possibly to a new page, if it is thought that its description is sufficiently different from dock (maritime) (which currently does not really describe a canal basin very well...).

I throw this idea at the project in case anyone feels like running with it, as I don't reckon to have enough knowledge (nor any reference material) to tackle it myself.

EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note also wharf. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a start at Canal basin, but it's currently little more than a dicdef, and needs to be expanded.

I've attempted a slight expansion, although my understanding (that a basin is basically a wide bit of canal!) may be flawed... EdJogg (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a start to create a page listing common features on the canal network. Users would then be free to create their own articles on each feature, creating dablinks to each separate article? There are plenty of such around.

That sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure has been mooted before. What to call it? Canal features? Canal civil engineering? Canal architecture? Fings wot you find on a canal? (none of these would seem to be all-encompassing)

Also see Category:Water transport infrastructure -- EdJogg (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Canal terminology would work for me, the Road article has a section called 'terminology'. All the different variations listed above could be redirected to that page. Also, a search for canal terminology finds many results that have terminology used in canal articles. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Canal#Features?Geni 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a terminology section to the Canal article would seem a good start. There is no reason why it should replace the existing 'Features' section, although that might be renamed 'Construction' as a result. EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Lock (water transport) seems like a pretty comprehensive article - I think it should be peer-reviewed and perhaps pushed to GA status? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would concur, although I'm a tad busy at present! There is an outstanding merge proposal that will need addressing before you an proceed very far. EdJogg (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Low number of refs would count against it.Geni 12:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would contest that a basin can be just a wide bit of canal. I suggest that this is a lay-by - a usage that predates its use for roads - and that a basin is a purpose built area either on an arm off the canal (eg numerous examples on BCN) or at a terminus (eg Paddington Basin). Hymers2 (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the problem. Those familiar with canals 'know what it is', but it still needs defining for the non-canal-literate. Finding a ready-made definition is hard, as the canal basin article shows.

May be the answer is to collect examples of canal basins and identify common or characteristic features?

EdJogg (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability issues

Having looked at the CfD above, read the articles in that category, and seen some of last summer's discussion on AfDs for society articles, I think it is perhaps time for us to create some guidelines for what is and what is not notable for articles within this project. Taking the three locks on the Hertford Union as an example, I see nothing noteworthy about them. They are unreferenced, and the content serves only to locate the lock geographically, give the rise of the lock and show a picture. One has a story about something that happened in a pub nearby, which while it is interesting is dubious content in this article (WP:COATRACK). My feeling is that they should be merged in to the canal article, or a list of locks on the canal (as per Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal.

So, I propose that we come up with guidelines for what is and is not an acceptable, a rationale for our decision, and suggestions for dealing with unacceptable articles when they arise. Otherwise I can see that we could be swamped with an awful lot of stubs, on the basis that if it is ok for Lock X to have an article, then Lock Y should have one too.

Comments please. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus would be much appreciated. I created these three articles because there was confusion between the five locks named 'Old Ford Lock' (see Old Ford Lock (Regent's Canal) and Old Ford Lock} - and this was reflected in the two articles that existed before. I have now referenced the articles to their Canalplan gazetteer entries - they also appear to be listed structures, so where I have found the entry in IoE, I have added that. I'm inclined to the view that listed structures are inherently notable - but they're only at Grade II - so, wouldn't press the point.

I don't know how it works in the rest of the country, but propinquity to local public houses tends to be relevant to London articles! Thanks for raising the issue. Kbthompson (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The dismabiguation page should be sufficient to avoid the confusion. The Canalplan reference is good for proving the data used in the infobox, but I'm not sure it does much for notability. Somewhere there is probably a database of the location of every telegraph pole in the country, but does that mean they should all have an article? The listed building status is much more relevant, (you missed a notable feature on Old Ford Upper Lock BTW) but I still feel that a better article could be created from a merge.Derek Andrews (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also add redirects that point to the headings in the main article that contains any merged material. The redirects can retain any appropriate categories so that the locks would be categorized correctly. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than have me bang on about these specific examples, can we consider general principles first - and then fit these examples to that template. I only got into this because I was spending an idle day trying to sort out the waterways around the London Olympic Park, on the River Lee Navigation. Multiple examples of Old Ford Locks came up - and it seemed that this was the simplest way to deal with it, without confusion. I'm not wedded to the idea of keeping them, if there's a better and unambiguous way of recording the difference. I can see merger may be the way to go, rather than my somewhat 'completest' solution. After all, Hertford Union Canal isn't exactly an 'overloaded' article.

The main problem with most of these particular waterways is the control system. The lower part of the Lee was semi-tidal; the Regent, not. I still haven't worked out how this affected the Hertford Union - and its locks. Thanks for inserting the additional 'factoid'; can you check the displayed format - it appears damaged, but UK IPs to wiki are being processed thru a cache, at the moment. Kbthompson (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

South Forty-Foot Drain nomination for GA status

I am thinking of nominating this article for GA status. Any comments or suggestions gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It passed. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done Bob. We need a Selected Article for the Portal in January and our latest GA would do just fine. Would you do the honors please Bob? Derek Andrews (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what this means. Any clues? Bob1960evens (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, January is already done. If you follow the link that Derek gave, take a look at January 2009, for an example of what has been done there. Basically, it means reducing the article to a single paragraph and one picture. Click on the link to February 2009, and add the paragraph and picture, and it will appear in the portal page for the month. Mayalld (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Article created. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Environment Agency

There is an ongoing problem with Environment Agency where an editor insists on removing valid referenced text, which has been supported separately by members of Thames, Rivers and Waterways projects. Can I ask those interested t keep an eye on this. Regards Motmit (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

might actually have some maps now

open street maps here is a reasonable start could use it in it's current state or wait.Geni 04:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Has some teething problems, but I guess it's early days. Most of the Wilts & Berks Canal and the Wey and Arun Canal routes are missing, for example.

Probably because the Wilts & Berks Canal doesn't even have a clear route and more and cycleing the full length of the Wey and Arun Canal would be tricky.Geni 13:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK...having investigated a little of how the OpenStreetMap Wiki works before answering I can see why this might be an issue! It also means that, as there is probably "no deadline", waiting for completion could be a lengthy business. However, it IS possible to use out-of-copyright maps to trace such routes...(just needs someone with the inclination and the time!)...so it'll get there one day.

EdJogg (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

see above where I make a few suggestions about what might be PD. individual canals tend not to be too bad (for example we have maps of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal) but country wide is a bit more of a problem.Geni 15:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a railway equivalent? There's a lot of railway detail shown (you can even see the loop for Didcot power station!) I'm sure that WikiProject UK Railways would be interested, if they are not already aware of it.

EdJogg (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

yes.Geni 13:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (unfortunately, same issues apply as for canals above) EdJogg (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI (the parent of the above maps) There is an equivalent UK Waterways WikiProject at OpenStreetMap, for coordinating mapping activities. EdJogg (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Canal

Hi all. Can I use this template in french (german, dutch...) canals articles ? Or is it specific to UK ? Thanks in advance. Alvar☮ ☎ 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The canal location appears to make no difference as long as the English template is used here, though I could be wrong. The template actually links French, Canal_de_Briare, Nederlands [1] among others .—Sandahl (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(conflit d'édition) : Ok, but... I just linked the template to fr: and nl: ;D Alvar☮ ☎ 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use it on any that you want! Of course, if you want to use it in a foreign language wiki that doesn't already have a suitable template, you will need to create a local copy of the template to use there.Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Alvar☮ ☎ 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This template is so... british ;D

• date_act = DATE OF ACT OF PARLIAMENT
• len = GAUGE LENGTH IN FEET
• len_in = GAUGE LENGTH INCHES
• o_len = ORIGINAL GAUGE LENGTH IN FEET
• o_len_in = ORIGINAL GAUGE LENGTH INCHES
• len_note = NOTES TO GAUGE LENGTH
• beam = GAUGE BEAM IN FEET
• beam_in = GAUGE BEAM INCHES
• o_beam = ORIGINAL GAUGE BEAM IN FEET
• o_beam_in = ORIGINAL GAUGE BEAM INCHES

Alvar☮ ☎ 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But of course! British canals need to be described in feet and inches, because attempting to use metric measurements causes all sort of inconsistencies.

In particular, the beam of narrow canals is problematic. They are built to 7ft beam for boats 6ft 10in wide. Unfortunately, convert those to metric at the same level of precision, and you get 2.1m for both figures. Converting so as to show the difference implies a greater precision than is appropriate.

If re-using elsewhere, it may be appropriate to rewrite without all the conversions (particularly if {{convert}} isn't available) Mayalld (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's posible to add some extra varables into the template to better suit non british canals.Geni 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the feet and inches (i'm the proud owner of a 25 feet sailing boat), it's the « date_act = DATE OF ACT OF PARLIAMENT » that makes me react, it's useless for french canals. Something like « date of the king's will » would be more appropriate.

I agree with Mayalld about the tech explanations.

and with Geni about the extra variablas.

For the while, the template is enough for me, it avoids me to make complicated sentences in my awfull english ;D

In the template, I don't find a place to put, for example, Freycinet gauge. This kind of standard doesn't exist in UK ?

Alvar☮ ☎ 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Or just add a freycinet gauge variable with yes or no ? It would be very France specific ;D Alvar☮ ☎ 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Canals of Great Britain - map?

I wonder if its worth doing a map of the canal network on this page Canals_of_Great_Britain, in the same style as the map templates for individual canals. Obviously not with all features included! Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to be criticised for being negative, but I can't see the existing map style being usable for this. Only one step on from one of the ELs on that page, I found this map (~2MB) which gives an indication of the scale of what you're proposing. A map, or maps, would be good though -- but might need to be regionalised sections.

EdJogg (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see how such a map could be produced without breaching copyright. There seem to be only four possibilities:

1. Trace every Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old containing a canal (from 6 inch maps as one inch maps of that age do not show canals clearly)
2. Walk or navigate every canal and former canal with a GPS track recorder thereby making a map from a survey
3. Memorise and amalgamate several paper maps from different sources such that none could have been said to be individually copied (inaccurate).
4. Purchasing a copyright licence to display such a map commercially in Wikipedia.

It seems a shame, but in the UK maps are not freely copyable. Oosoom ^Talk 08:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't copyright expire on OS maps older than 50 years? Could be wrong about that, but I'm sure I've seen an image or two on Wiki with just such a legend in the licence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

they do but your problem would be finding a whole UK map that shows the canals then getting the thing through a scanner (they tend to be around a meter square in size things like Image:Stroudwater Navigationmap1933.jpg are created by scanning a very small area).Geni 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not a small task then. Oddly enough I did create a map overlay for the MBB canal, primarily for use in Google Earth. I took the imagery from old-maps.co.uk, it took me absolutely ages to do and I only did it to help trace the original route through the bits where it's buried! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey posible attack lines john cary's 1795 Inland navigation might be worth a try. Otherwise the Walker Nichols and Priestly canal map of Great Britain or george bradshaw canal maps both produced in about 1830. At 1/2 to the mile george bradshaw's stuff might be scanable. None of these would be easy to get hold of mind.Geni 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Copley published something in 1850 that looks hopeful but again hard to get hold of.Geni 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this further we could get someone for existing canals from the open streetmap people or try working from Nichols, Priestley and Walkers Map of the Inland Navigation, Canals and Rail Roads, with the Situations of the various Mineral Productions, throughout Great Britian from 1830 but getting hold of a copy could be tricky.Geni 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no law against using copyrighted maps as references. It should be perfectly legal to draw your own map using an existing one as reference. As long as you don't use a copyrighted map directly. G-Man ^? 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be regarded as a derivative work. Technicaly you might have a point if you worked from the original raw data rather than the map but we don't have that.Geni 04:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two almost suitable data-sources that I know of;

1. Canalplanner AC XML datafiles[2] (GPL)
2. OpenStreetMap, not complete, but we're getting there (CC-BY-SA)

In addition, I year so I did draw some London Underground style maps[3] (4 kB PDF) from scratch. And experiment with maps draw from the Canalplanner dataset[4] (22 kB PDF). The Inkscape SVG files/scripts are in the same directory.

1. 3 another option might be to ask Waterways World for some of their in-house maps (the current editor is heavily involved with OpenStreetMap).

—Sladen (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal DYK

The portal is looking quite well, but we need more snippets of information for the DYK sections.

Portal:UK Waterways/Did you know/List shows where we have gaps.

Of particular priority is filling the g01 and g02 sections to ensure that we have no ugly redlinks.

So, if you have any interesting facts, start adding them!! Mayalld (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have trawled through the articles and managed to fill in g01, g02 and g03, and have made a start on g04, but need an easier way to find articles, as most of my facts came from articles with maps on them. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rating of multi-Project acticles

How does rating work when an article is in more than one project, please? Caistor Canal was a Stub, but is now Start in the Lincolnshire project, but still Stub in the Waterways project. Can I upgrade it to Start and remove the stub template, or can an article be both Stub and Start at the same time? (It is also a Geography project stub) Bob1960evens (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As a fully-signed up member of Waterways project you can change that assessment if you think that it is wrong (and remove the stub template); if you are a member of WPgeo you could change their assessment as well, or you could just be kind hearted and update theirs at the same time as you do it for Waterways.Pyrotec (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can change a rating from stub to start/C class, as this assessment is mainly based on article size; the higher ratings (for quality and coverage) being awarded by editors outside the projects. The article importance rating would normally be set by a project member with understanding of the subject matter.

The class rating should be the same for all projects, but the importance is likely to be different. Hence whoever decided it was no longer a stub should have changed all banners and removed the stub template.

Class and importance assessments are two jobs I leave to others who know the appropriate metrics and get fulfilment from doing so, although I have elevated a few stubs in my time. By the same token, if I find an un-tagged railway- or canal-based article I will add the appropriate banner template, but with no parameters, as I feel that the ratings will be more consistent if a minimum number of people apply the standards -- I don't want to apply an inappropriate rating.

EdJogg (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with EdJogg except for one point, some WP's won't accept C-class, it has to be Start-class or B-class for them. WikiProject Military history is one, so you can get an article that other WPs rate as C-class article, whereas MILHIS downgrade to Start-class; but there are other WPs as well that do the same as well.Pyrotec (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Canal Map

I had a go at a map, hope you like the result. I made it so the three sections collapse/expand, otherwise it got rather long or needed multiple maps. Ronhjones (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stort Navigation Route Map

Also had a go at this one - while not too distant a memory (moored for 15 years on Stort - it did help with all the weir streams...). I did find I needed two extra icons - it was to messy to make without them, so I made them up by editing existing icons, and kept to the same naming protocol. They are

uHKRZun - For horizonal navigable water and vertical track crossing (there was only uxHKRZun available in that row)

uddSTR - For a double sided marina (there was only uddSTRl and uddSTRd)

I'll add them to the template legend. Ronhjones (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RDT

I have been adding "RDT" to applicable templates to help distinguish them from other templates and now more as a norm to show they are RDTs (or Route Diagram Templates). Although i did not propose this, i carried it out being bold and thinking it was uncontroversial. Similar suffixes to the same types of templates have been added (not by me and even some with the suffix RDT not by me either) such as "map", "route map" and "route diagram". As recently this has been questioned, could i ask for people's opinions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Suffices. Simply south (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Inland waterway under restoration

I have just discovered the template {{Inland waterway under restoration}} which puts a banner-warning in an article and adds to an appropriate category. This may be useful in articles on disused canals where there is much work to be done. I have reservations about its use more generally in articles on established canals which may need some restoration. It is a warning about speculative or changeable information, and could spoil the overall confidence in an article if over-used. To be used sparingly? Oosoom ^Talk to me 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I created that a few weeks ago when I discovered the Temporal Templates, and thought it would be a good idea, then had similar doubts myself. It can be applied to a section, so it may be more appropriate just to add it to the restoration section of an article as I did for Thames and Severn Canal. If you feel that the text could be rewritten to make it more appropriate, please give it a try.--Derek Andrews 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes are normaly on the scale of years so I don't think it is needed.Geni 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be circumstances where it is hard to find current information about the state of restoration (some obscure little project that isn't well documented online, such as some of the foreign canals), or where things happen very rapidly, as is planned for Droitwich. But I agree, in most UK cases it won't be needed.--Derek Andrews 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we will have a number of wikipedains involved in the Droitwich work so keeping up should not be a problem. Certianly we have had pics taken on two different WRG camps uploaded this year by different people.Geni 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Both photos on the Droitwich article are thirty years old:) It took six months for the news about the planning application to appear in the article. --Derek Andrews 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that a similar template should be created, but instead on a future canal or some waterway or related structure? For example Grand Union Canal#New branch Simply south 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No because I don't think we have a serious issues with keeping up to date.Geni 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template has now been deleted anyway.[5] Oosoom ^Talk 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Humber is not a river.

I'm pretty sure that the Humber Estuary (Northern England) is not a river (as many topics state) but an Estuary (it is formed from rivers [eg, Ouse, Trent] and not from a spring, and it also ends in a 'Saline tidal mouth' [at the North Sea]).

Would it be possible to script this change? (mostly River Humber to Humber Estuary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.39.137 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Complicated; you're absolutely right that it's technically not a river, but as with the River Plate or the Elizabeth River, "River Humber" is a commonly used name for it even if not technically accurate. The Port of Hull, the Hull & Goole Port Health Authority, and Humber Estuary Services, all of whom ought to know, refer to it as "the River Humber", as does the definitive (well, more accurately only) film on Humber shipping, Ships on the River Humber. I'd say keep the article as Humber, but don't change River Humber links unless they're actively causing a problem. – iridescent 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the official name may in fact be "River Humber" – see item 10 in the Coast Protection Act, which defines the boundaries between "coast" and "river". If that's the case, then I'd definitely oppose making any search-and-replace changes. – iridescent 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Should we archive some of this page - it's getting rather long. I've a nice bit of code I keep handy for auto archive (User:Ronhjones/ArchiveData) I can insert if agreed - it leaves minimum of 10 threads and 1 year old.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful -- there are already two archive pages linked near the top of the page. Next archive should sort out placing links to all of them in a clearly defined box at top of page (eg).

Manual archive is not difficult, also allows you to retain important topics if appropriate. Alternately there is 'Miszabot' (sp.??) which will do everything automatically, but is probably overkill for this project.

EdJogg (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see them there! But usefully they are called Archive 1 and Archive 2 which is very compliant with archive box templates. I do use Miszabot - it's not overkill if you format it correctly - I think the default is 2or3 threads and 7or14 days which is way no use for this sort of page, where discussions may roll on a bit. I've now used it on quite a few pages, but as I said initially - I set it to 365days and 10 threads - so nothing under a year old gets archived, and if that would leave less than 10 threads then it's not done. I'll have a go and we'll see what it does - I'll set the counter to "3", so the 2 archives present are left intact as they are and we'll start Miszabot with Archive 3. If we don't like it, we can either tweak it or just revert it - after all nothing is ever lost.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough -- should be OK for us. Didn't realise that the bot was as configurable -- the instances I see most often obviously use the default parameters. If anyone thinks that any of the above topics should remain locally visible, long-term, please consider how they can be incorporated on the project page. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is very useful once you get to grips with it. It has created an Archive 3 - which is already about half full (I've set it to 100kb), sometime it will start No.4. I'm also trying to make an index of the whole lot in one page (and including a link in the archive box) - still playing with that bot!...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Index of Articles

I've managed to get the Indexer bot to index all three Archive pages as well as this one, and combine into a sortable table with clickable links. The link to the index can be found as the first entry in the Archive Box near the top of the page or for quickness use /Archive index  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is (to coin a modern idiom) 'wick-ed, man'...

Every talk page should have one! -- EdJogg (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, it's very useful - bit of a learning curve to get the desired result (not unusual in WP), but I'm happy it worked in the end.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Birchills Junction

Could somebody with the requisite knowledge add something about BCN's Birchills Junction, to Birchills, Walsall, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Junction Canal

I started a route map (User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2 - if you want a peek). My question is that on Google Earth there appears to be a disused cut connecting the canal to the Ouse at 52 4'1.48"N 0 49'55.34"W. Is that real? The phot there of the lock looks a bit modern. I've put it on the map for now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That is where the canal locked down to the Ouse and back up on the other side while the aqueduct was being built. (The text in the article says 9?) There is a map in Alan Faulner's 'The Grand Junction Canal' showing four locks on each side of the river. I would guess that the one visible on Gmaps is the bottom of the four on the south of the river. The line is quite straight, and the top lock was approximately at the end of the present wharf. On the north of the river, the cut came out at that wide pond by the lock on the main line. The river was diverted somewhat when the aquduct was built, and although it is not clear in the satellite image, Get-a-map still shows some the original course in water. --Derek Andrews (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Derek, I'll have a look at Get-a-map.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Culverts

Previous history

For article Subfluvial tunnel ESPO and Lena River it was necessary to set crossing type. As before Culverts as type crossing in wikipedia were not used for a categorisation, it was necessary to enter it. I have estimated reasonable to include in it such water objects which are Culverts on the big extent. Let's discuss two questions: whether there is a necessity to allocate them in separate classification from tunnels and what to include in this category.--Andrey! 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition

Discussion is transferred with User Talk:AndreyA#Culvert category

Hi Audrey. I think you may be going in the wrong direction adding all these waterways to the category culvert, and would ask that you stop until it can be discussed in a wider forum and consensus is agreed. More to follow... --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my thinking on the subject. Articles like Lancaster Canal may incorporate one or more culverts in their construction, but they themselves are not a culvert. Furthermore, the culverts may not be notable in their own right. Also by extending your logic, Lancaster Canal, should also be placed in categories such as Brick, Bridge, Aqueduct etc. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not approach for User talk page. Where you suggest to discuss a category? Perhaps on page Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges.--Andrey! 11:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways which is the project I am involved with. Please feel free to seek guidance at Bridges. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

User User talk:AndreyA has been adding all articles mentioning Culverts to a category of that name. I have asked her to stop and left an explanation on her talk page. This is ridiculous isn't it? Please add comments to her talk page. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to make comments there. It is necessary to make comments here.--Andrey! 11:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed a few article that have been added to this category by AndreyA. I agree that the category has been added incorrectly to articles.
AndreyA, please read WP:Categorization#What categories should be created. It says that categories "should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects." So, an article should not be put in a Category:Culverts just because it contains the word "culvert." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Tunnels

I've modified Template:Infobox tunnel to be more waterway friendly - see Harecastle Tunnel for example. Hope you like it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Counties Ring

Just finished a Route Map - have a look. It just a joining of the 4 main sections taken from other maps (and reversed as necessary to join up) with a bit of shrinking with some of the lock flights.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, but I think you have the Harecastle tunnel ends the wrong way round. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So I have! That was one of the sections that I had to reverse all the locks - I forgot about the tunnel. All done now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the junctions with Hatherton (which is on your right as you head toward Gailey), the Caldon (on your right as you come out of the locks) and Hardingswood ( on the left once you've left the tunnel). Or have I just mis-read the map Steve Atty (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers for books used in River Parrett FAC

As you may have noticed River Parrett is currently a featured article candidate. On the review one of the reviewers has noticed that several books are lacking page numbers. If you have any of the books below would you be willing to check the page numbers for the claims made in the article?

• Hadfield, Charles (1967). The Canals of South West England. David and Charles. ISBN 978-0715341766. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Robinson, Stephen (1992). Somerset Place Names. Dovecote Press. ISBN 1874336032. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Waite, Vincent (1964). Portrait of the Quantocks. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 0709111584. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Nicholson Waterways Guide, Volume 7, (2006), Harper Collins Publishers, ISBN 0-00-721115-5
• Cumberlidge, Jane (1998). Inland Waterways of Great Britain (7th ed.). Imray Laurie Norie and Wilson. ISBN 0-85288-355-2.

Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Canalplan AC Links

Nick has been doing a lot of work on Canalplan AC and we've noticed that a lot of the links buried in Wiki are to the unaliased mihalis url. So I'm going to start updating them - so any pointers to pages where they might be lurking would be a great help. It would be great too if people, when they are editing pages, could replace the old URLS which looked like http://www2.mihalis.net/canal/cgi-bin/gazette.cgi?where=$0ooo with the new ones which look like http://www.canalplan.org.uk/cgi-bin/gazetteer.cgi?id=0ooo

Steve Atty (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Special:LinkSearch. Enter the URL and it will show you all the articles that need changing. (see here = 18 pages) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - will make my life a lot easier Steve Atty (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pages nos in Ekwall's 1928 book English River Names

Does anyone have a copy of Ekwall, Eilert (1928). English River Names. Oxford Clarendon Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) and would be willing to look up a page number for the derivation of the name of the River Parrett from Pedair from pedr meaning four and Rit meaning flow, which in this case would relate to the four flows or streams: the Tone, Yeo, Isle and Parrett. This is the last item needed (I think) in getting the article on the River Parrett ready for another FA nomination (last time it was closed with no opposes , but also no supports). Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 11:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

Just to let you know River Parrett has been nominated for Featured Article status and discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive2. It would be great if anyone had any comments.— Rod ^talk 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-assessment of articles

Is there a need to trawl the UK Waterways articles, so see whether the assessments are still right? Having just scanned through 172 articles, the ratings are extremely variable, from B-class with not a lot of information to Stub class with considerable amounts of well-organised information. If I knew how to be objective, I might have a go myself, but I think I am likely to rate most of them too highly, without some more obvious guidelines as to what constitutes Start, C or B class. Any thoughts? Bob1960evens (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never tried to rate any article, it's always far too subjective. Ideally one needs some sort of points system - but then editors start to write the articles in a way that gets most points - or is that not a bad thing?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox canal

I'm surprised there isn't a length attribute in this template. It is one of the basic ways of distinguishing canals and occurs in most similar templates, e.g. rivers, even though there it is often contentious. Clearly it needs to be distinguished from boat length. Is it ok to add an attribute or is there any consensus required? Can anyone change a template? Chris55 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be a simple omission. If we have reliable source available, then it's probably worth including, however... What about branches and arms? Would the length equate to the total number of route-miles or the physical distance of the main line? How do railway and road infoboxes handle the same problem?

As for editing the template, any editor can change it, although for a controversial change it may be advisable to seek consensus first. Be careful though, some of the templates use insanely complicated parser code to produce the desired functionality, and in these cases it's usually best to contact the template's authors or regular editors.

EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of including branch canals: this is not to be used for route-planning purposes after all. Railways are somewhat different in that the focus of interest might be "Great Western Main Line" which wouldn't include branches. But if we went for "Grand Union Main Line" then we'd need all the branches to have separate articles. Apart from the GUC, the Birmingham Canal Network has the most odd branches and there is a tendency there for separate articles describing a simple half-mile branch of canal without locks, sometimes derelict, which seems rather ott. Chris55 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Time for bold - made changes for you. The easiest way to make changes, is to pick a parameter that has a similar action, copy that section and change the text - I used the lock section. Here's the new section you need to add.

  |length      = LENGTH OF CANAL
  |o_length    = ORIGINAL LENGTH OF CANAL
  |length_note = NOTE TO CANAL LENGTH

Like most of the fields, if there is nothing added then nothing appears  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Names of old canals

Is there a policy on the names of canals which have been taken over by other canal companies? I'm trying to sort out the Leicester line of the Grand Union, and it's a bit chaotic at the moment. The old Grand Union has a reasonable page and I've just added one for the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Union Canal. There is a page called River Soar most of which should probably be in "River Soar Navigation" according to the guidelines (though the original names were Leicester Navigation and Loughborough Navigation). On the main line there is an article on the Grand Junction, which starts at Braunston, but the Warwick & Birmingham and Warwick & Napton (as well as the Birmingham and Warwick Junction) are missing. So a third of the main line isn't well covered. It seems to me the Grand Junction is complicated enough by itself with all its branch canals (some of which aren't covered) without throwing in all the others.

The Regent's has its own page even though it is as much part of the GU as all the others (indeed it was the buyer) and the Hertford Union and Erewash should also be included. The names of those in the 1st paragraph are almost forgotten these days whereas those in this one are still used, but that doesn't seem quite enough to treat them differently. They mostly had a century or more of independent existence.

In the List of canals in the United Kingdom I've started including them all with a footnote saying they're part of the GU. Is this going to cause any problems? In canal terms it was quite a recent takeover... Chris55 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In terms of article names, you should follow the normal naming guidelines, which recommend using the name by which the article's subject is best known. In the case of canal companies, the official name might be better, with a redirect from other names, as needed. There is scope for any and all of the companies you mention having their own articles if there is sufficient information available to warrant it. The GUC is very long, and it would not be unreasonable for the current article to become a parent to many descendant articles. It's one of those jobs that's not for the faint-hearted. The bigger the article topic, the harder it is to determine its scope and the subsections it should contain.

For the GUC it may be clearer if the article deals with each canal section in turn, each linking to an article on the constructing company (and its descendants) and detailing the history of that section while a separate entity -- the main article can then summarise all the other sub-articles and cover the common history itself.

EdJogg (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

UK Waterways articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the UK Waterways articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

U-Boat

Does this have any place in any articles? Simply south (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It was shown on Granada News tonight (http://www.itv.com/granada/u-boat-spotted-on-canal62257/). I guess it could be added as a small section on Narrowboat - perhaps as an "Unusual type" in Narrowboat#Modern_narrowboat_types.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a photo around of an actual submarine (H class) navigating the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal. More ontopic dressed up canal boats are a common feature of the Cavalcade at little venice.©Geni 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cavalcade - been there, done that, and got the T shirt many years ago - I was the telescopic "Canary Wharf" on a londonwrg entry (telescopic to get under the bridges) - lucky it wasn't windy...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Turf-sided locks

Our articles on the turf-sided Garston Lock and Monkey Marsh Lock (both on the K&A) used to contradict each other on a) how many working turf-sided locks there are in the country, and b) how many of these are on the K&A. Now, I've updated both articles to say that there's two on that canal (with source), but is there any truth in the original statement that there aren't any elsewhere in the country? matt (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BW certainly claims that and I think all the others have been converted. Certainly the Exeter Turf Lock is solid brick and so is Mildenhall. I had a feeling there was at least one up in the north-east which was still partially turf-sided but I can't find any mention of it on the web. Chris55 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is one on the River Wey (Walsham, I think) but it is a flood lock, so normally all the gates are open. Re K&A, while Garston Lock is more or less as built (apart from "health and safety" additions) Monkey Marsh was heavily "modernised" during the restoration.Hymers2 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See this picture of Walsham lock Chris55 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Waterways in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

River Lea and Lee Valley Park

I created Category:River Lea as there are so many articles but it is hard to tell which to put in that category and which to put in the sub-category Category:Lee Valley Park and so I am requesting help in populating these two categories. Also, the name of the first category is disputed. Simply south...... 16:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and see Talk:River Lee (England) for rthe main move request. The previuos discussion was never concluded. Simply south...... 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the end of the Lea moves. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2#Category:Weirs of the River Lee. Simply south...... 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Humber

I've taken the liberty of adding the Witham to your project, the lower half being navigable and all.

Now, what about the Humber? (grin). River or estuary, it is certainly inland, navigable, and used for commercial trade... --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Simply south...... 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few things I can, but it needs major work on inland shipping I've seen coal, aggregate, and refined petrol being shipped but can't find any reliable references apart from the DofT - and that lacks detail. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The obvious places to look are the port of Goole and Keadby as well as, of course, Immingham and Grimsby. I don't think Gainsborough has much significant shipping any more. There's still some sand and gravel that makes it down the Trent but I'm not sure of the company. Incidentally, you can see there's 10 tonnes of fish on sale in the Grimsby electronic auction today. Chris55 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Louth Navigation

I've just added another one to the project! Sorry. Louth Navigation --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Simply south...... 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

River Weaver article

I am thinking of submitting this article for Good Article status. Any comments, help, or additions would be appreciated. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll gladly review it at GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made a few tweaks and nominated it. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Waterways in the United Kingdom

I'm surprised this article hasn't been deleted or had any attention to it. If you can call it an article. It's a mess. Is it a disambiguation page? Should it be moved as a sub-page of this project? Is anyone willing to change it into a general article about waterways in the United Kingdom? Should it be a redirect to the canals UK article? In other words, what should be done about it? Simply south...... 22:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not obvious what it is, but have yet to formulate ideas as to what could be done with it. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's actually linked from List of waterways as one of the 2 UK links (the other being List of estuaries of England). Maybe it should be renamed List of waterways in the United Kingdom?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I not sure that would work, unless we merged in the lists on canals, estuaries and rivers. Simply south...... 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A little archaeology helps here. The article, as created by the original author, was essentially a list of canals, etc. I think this was later split off into a separate article. Looking at these earlier versions may give a clue as to what it's original function was, and what it should be now. EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Basicaly it appears to have started life as what would now be a rather odd article with a list attached. The article has never really grown and the lists have been moved about a fair bit. An article could be written or we could convert it to a disambiguation page.©Geni 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do think that a good overview page is needed anyway. So should someone convert it? And what are others' opinions? Simply south...... 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DAB page is fine by me  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Overview articles are worth having but not easy to write. Even canal has issues (sourcing mostly).©Geni 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we also need a list of river navigations? I notice that the River Weaver (just passed GA nomination) and the River Avon (Warwickshire), for instance, do not get listed on the canals page, and the rivers page makes no distinction between navigable and un-navigable. They are both as much canals as the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation, say, which is essentially a river. Also, the South Forty-Foot Drain, which is entirely artificial, is listed as a river but not as a canal. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a category Category:River navigations in England (plus ones for Scotland & Wales, but not yet one for N.I.) which I beleive is reasonably accurate. Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just compared the entries in that category with Cumberlidge: Inland Waterways of Great Britain and there are 44 that aren't there, including the Severn. Paget-Tomlinson adds another 11. I've been up 14 of them. The problem is partly in the name. "Navigation" isn't quite the same as "navigable river" - or is it? Paget-Tomlinson calls some of them navigations. But what about the navigable rivers that have never been 'improved'?

In general I'm happy with using a category rather than a list as long as there's a prominent pointer to it. There are many readers who don't understand the existence of categories in Wikipedia. Maybe a link in the lead of List of canals of the United Kingdom would be one. I can also fill in the missing category entries. Chris55 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We should remember the name "Waterways" - it does imply navigability though that can include canoes and rowing boats of course. At present all the lists of rivers go right down to the stream. There's also the rather pointless "Longest rivers of the United Kingdom" article. That would be much more useful as the basis of a "Navigable rivers" page. Length of rivers is rather arbitrary (does anyone remember the edit wars over the length of the Shannon?). We could include a column for the distance that is navigable.

I'd also propose renaming the "river navigations" categories as "navigable rivers". Chris55 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

That we should change the category "River navigations" to "Navigable rivers". The former is an historical term which relates to the parliamentary history of "improvements" and has very little relevance today. Several rivers such as the Ancholme, Colne and Wey are technically navigations but are rarely referred to as such these days. Others such as the Great Ouse, Hull, Thames and Trent have never been navigations (afaik) but are in the category.

"Navigable Rivers" is useful today and isn't contentious though there are marginal cases, mainly where the navigable length is small or tidal. We should continue to use "England", "Wales" and "Scotland", not counties. Chris55 (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But what about the Stort Navigation and Lee Navigation, for example? They are man-made water channels which diversions off the original river routes. Simply south...... 13:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Wey Navigation is a term very much still in use, particularly by the National Trust (who own it) although the navigable parts are covered by the article Wey and Godalming Navigations. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lee and Stort are basically rivers which is why they are called navigations. Like most navigations they have stretches of canal to get round troublesome parts, many of which were part of an original course of the river in the case of the Lea/Lee. The distinction is often marginal.

As for the Wey, that's an interesting case. That article has only been put in the Category:Canals in Surrey so I didn't see it when writing the above, whereas the River Wey article I referred to has been put in Category:River navigations in England. Why they should be distinct articles I don't know; I wasn't trying to claim the term was never used. (Ok, I've deleted the term never above:) But it does demonstrate the confusion that exists at the moment. Chris55 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They might be called the Lee Navigation and the Stort Navigation, but any boater on there (like I was for 11 years), refers to the River Lee or River Stort. BW allows a "River Only License", and gives a list here, and leaves the word River out completely in the list of rivers! There is no answer.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do I take that as an agreement with my proposal? Chris55 (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well its not clear precisely what your proposal is: I suggest that you state it clearly. So far you've only asked two questions. Change "River navigations" to "Navigable rivers" is undoubtly part / perhaps most of the proposal, but what about the rest of your first comment.Pyrotec (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the comment is simply the justification. Sorry if I don't know the exact wiki way of presenting a proposal. However if you want me to be more precise, the proposal is:

Change Category:River navigations in the United Kingdom to Category:Navigable rivers in the United Kingdom

Change Category:River navigations in England to Category:Navigable rivers in England

Change Category:River navigations in Wales to Category:Navigable rivers in Wales

Change Category:River navigations in Scotland to Category:Navigable rivers in Scotland

Chris55 (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any objections to those four changes. Note: these are only changes of category-name so Stort Navigation and Lee Navigation would keep their existing names. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK by me, and while we at it - do we need Category:Navigable rivers in Ulster or Category:Navigable rivers in Northern Ireland - since we lump England, Scotland, and Wales into Category:River navigations in the United Kingdom - or should that be Category:River navigations in Great Britian if we leave the Ireland canals and rivers on their own?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I never got round to creating and populating them/it. The four above I did as long ago as 2007. Pyrotec (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do the change and add a Navigable rivers in Northern Ireland. I won't get into the complexities of adding a Navigable rivers in Ireland at this point, though I have visited most of them.:-) Chris55 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:River navigations in the United Kingdom

Category:River navigations in the United Kingdom, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, do any of you want to speak up? Currently there are 2 "keep" messages and none in support so the proposal will die.

Thinking about it, my concern is mainly to define "Inland Waterways" a bit more clearly so that one get at a more or less complete list. To do that one needs an "authority": I've traditionally used Cumberlidge which has slightly different criteria than Paget-Tomlinson. I was hoping the latter might be usable but even that has odd omissions: for example the river Dee which was subject to acts in 1734, 1744 and 1791 and is still part of the inland waterways above Chester.

But we do need to be a bit more consistent if we want to distinguish river and canal navigations. e.g. many navigations are included in canal categories and lists as well as/instead of navigation categories. Yet canals are regarded by many people as essentially different to navigations. Chris55 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Grand Western Canal - route through Taunton

I initially posted this question on the help desk for guidance on where best to post it. The help desk suggested I might get a better answer either at the reference desk or at the UK Waterways project, so I am posting this again at both (hopefully I am not breaching any cross-posting rules)

I am trying to make sense of the route of the Taunton end of the Grand Western Canal. Old Ordnance Survey maps suggest it came into the town across Roughmoor and met the Tone in French Weir. The Wikipedia article on the Grand Western Canal suggests that the Grand Western actually linked direct to the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. The article on the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal suggests that the link with the Grand Western was made by going up the Tone and building a short stretch of canal at French Weir. Both plans however show the link being made with the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. In addition the Map reference given for the Taunton Boat Lift appears odd. It resolves to 81 St Augustine Street which is on the right bank of the Tone whereas all the other canal works are on the left bank of the Tone. 88.108.222.192 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the GWC or the B&TC so I'll defer to anyone who does. However the article only says they had powers to construct a lock and a short length of canal at French Weir, not that they actually did it. Everything was governed by the Act of Parliament and I would imagine it was not uncommon to allow for several possible routes in case problems arose. Chris55 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have since managed to dig out an older OS map which clearly shows a route for the GWC running parallel with the railway and joining up with the B&TC. So it appears it is not one or the other but both routes existed. A direct link with B&TC at the beginning of the B&TC and a spur across roughmoor joining up with the Tone at French Weir. I am still puzzled by the Boat Lift coordinates as the mapped routes go nowhere near St Augustine Street. 88.108.222.192 (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Western Canal article mentions that the route was changed to connect directly with the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. Using the 1889 OS map, which was printed before the railway goods yard obliterated the remains, I have located the Taunton boat lift and altered its coordinates. Thanks for pointing out the problem. I don't believe there was ever a link to French Weir, since the canal would be a well over 20 ft too high, as there was a lock near the junction, and Taunton lift had a rise of 23.5 ft. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have only just managed to get back to this. First, thanks for updating the lift coordinates. There was without doubt a cut from the River Tone at French Weir to the main line of the Grand Western Canal the other side of Frieze Hill. Apart from the fact that I used to collect frog spawn in it many years ago, the first edition 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey map clearly shows the remains of the canal crossing French Weir with a lock at the junction with the river and a second lock halfway across French Weir. The cut carried on parallel with the Tone through the first field of roughmoor before turing north along the edge of the second field in roughmoor. The join with the main line would have been at approximately 51º01'21.6"N 3º07'03.6"W. Pages 77-78 of The Grand Western Canal by Helen Harris confirms that there was a cut, made in 1834, although it may have been little used. I have now created a Wikipedia account so I will try to draft suitable additional paragraph for the article over the coming period. Yertizz (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I take back what I said above. I have now found a section of Grand Western on the 1889 OS map, with two Lock (remains of) entries on it, near French Weir, and a Weir Field a little above that, after which it is very flaky. I think it would still have needed at least one more lock, and possibly two, to overcome the height difference. Harris mentions a tithe map and John Wood's town map of 1840, but I don't know how to get hold of them, yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick search of the national archives suggests that both the Wood's Town Map and the St James Tithe Map for 1840 are available at the Somerset Record Office . I very much doubt that they are digitised however. Yertizz (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Somerset does have some digited (out of copyright) OS maps available from the Somerset.gov.uk site, but possibly not these two (sods law). If you are prepared a wait a few weeks (possibly a month), I could go there in person (I've been twice, and it is worthwhile visiting if there is a reason to do so - I had reasons at that time). Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Bedwyn Lock

Take your pick from these photos:

• File:Little Bedwyn Lock - geograph.org.uk - 1302179.jpg
• File:Little Bedwyn Lock - geograph.org.uk - 755287.jpg
• File:Little Bedwyn - Lock 67 - geograph.org.uk - 1279894.jpg
• File:Little Bedwyn - Lock 67 - geograph.org.uk - 1279892.jpg
• File:Little Bedwyn Lock No 67, Kennet and Avon Canal - geograph.org.uk - 409455.jpg
• File:Below Little Bedwyn Lock No 67, Kennet and Avon Canal - geograph.org.uk - 857382.jpg
• File:Potters Lock No 66, Kennet and Avon Canal - geograph.org.uk - 409569.jpg
• File:Canal lock, Railway and road - geograph.org.uk - 1283064.jpg

--Trevj (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal

The Kennet and Avon Canal article, which is tagged as being of interest to this project, has been a Good Article since 2006. A few editors have recently been expanding and improving this article in an attempt to get it up to Featured Article standard. Could you take a look and help to improve the article?— Rod ^talk 13:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has now been nominated at FAC. A reviewer has questioned whether the descriptions of the "Seven Wonders of the Waterways" here were written by Robert Aickman or Jim Shead. Can anyone help to answer that query?— Rod ^talk 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Droitwich Canal map

Now the canal is open again I assume this template needs updating.©Geni 23:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

River Parrett on front page 7 July

I've just found out that River Parrett will be on the front page of wikipedia on 7 July. Any help beforehand with ensuring it shows off our best work and then watching it on the day for vandalism etc would be great.— Rod ^talk 16:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

K&A Canal at FAC

The Kennet and Avon Canal article has now been under review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive2 for some time but has not received many comments. I am worried that it will be archived soon unless more comments are received, therefore can I ask anyone interested to participate in the review.— Rod ^talk 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wappenshall Junction

These photos from 1964 may be of some interest:

• File:Wappenshall Junction, Shrewsbury Canal - geograph.org.uk - 335323.jpg
• File:Remains of guillotine gate, Wappenshall Lock, Shropshire - geograph.org.uk - 251635.jpg

--Trevj (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added them to the article. David (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Route diagram icons for swing bridges

Recently I needed to add a swing bridge icon to a railway route diagram. Since the article primarily concerns a railway, the red and pink lines for the railway routes run up and down, with bridges as appropriate over secondary features such as roads and canals, these being drawn at right-angles to the railway, i.e. left-right. One bridge that I needed to add is over a navigable canal, i.e. dark blue. For a fixed bridge this is easy:  (mKRZo) if the railway is in use,  (xmKRZo) if disused. However, my bridge is a swing bridge, and there wasn't a suitable icon. There were  (umKRZusw), which is at right angles to what I needed, and  (uHSWING) which is the right orientation but does not have a railway line across the deck. Accordingly I decided to create icons which fit in with my needs. Initially I tried doing this in two different ways: (a) by adding a red line to  (uHSWING); (b) by rotating  (umKRZusw) by 90° clockwise, but neither was entirely satisfactory. My main concerns were: (i) there was a white gap between the water and the bridge; (ii) the diagonal lines were not parallel; (iii) the parapets are rather thin, and the abutments are very short; (iv) the parapets are spaced quite closely together, meaning that either they lose their impact or that the red line is narrowed; (v) on one of them, the black circle representing the pivot is rather small.

Therefore I created my own versions ( (umKRZqusw) and  (uxmKRZqusw)) from scratch, which I think look significantly better. Here: (i) the water meets the parapet without a gap, as with most other canal bridges; (ii) diagonals (abutments excepted) are parallel (the deck is shown rotated 60° from "open"); (iii) the parapets are of approximately normal thickness, and the abutments are of approximately normal length; (iv) the parapets are spaced further apart, allowing for a narrow gap between these and the red line, as with other railway bridges (although the gap varies, it's almost always present); (v) the black "pivot" circle is of the larger variety.

I have two main questions:

1. Are these named suitably? I am sure that they are not named correctly, but are my chosen names acceptable or wildly against convention?
2. Is the form of the bridge acceptable? Would the project like me to redraw any of the other swing bridges (the ones that I know of being  (uAKRZusw),  (uASWINGu),  (ugSWING),  (uHSWING),  (uKRZuysw),  (umKRZusw),  (uSWING),  (uxSWING)) in similar form?

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Have asked at commons:Talk:BSicon#Icon name query. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They look good to me. Personally, I quite like the use of "q" at the end, but see discussion above, where user:Apxde objects where both lines are railways/canals. I am also in favour of consistency, so would support redrawing the icons (although I suspect I created some of them!) As for naming, I think that to be consistent, umKRZuswq ought to be mKRXusw, and umKRZuxswq ought to be xmKRZusw. Thus they become railway icons crossing canals, rather than canal icons crossing railways (the lack of the initial "u"), and the modifiers for use always go at the beginning. This allows em variants (live railway over unnavigable waterway), exm variants (dead railway over unnavigable waterway) and gm variants (live railway over unwatered canal) to be created, and displayed on the legend page without having to invent new line objects to display a set of icons which use a different naming scheme. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To the above suggestion "would the project like me to redraw any of the other swing bridges", add  (uxSWINGq), which has its deck "opposite" to the others, i.e. it rotates anticlockwise to open for canal traffic, not clockwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I drew the uxSWINGq, and it rotates the other way because I had not spotted uHSWING. There is no significance to the way it opens. I would rename uHSWING to uSWINGq. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

River Ouse (Yorkshire) takeover

Does anyone know when the Yorksire Ouse was taken over by British Waterways? It obviously wasn't in 1986 (Inland Waterways of Great Britain (6th Ed)), but was by 1998 (IWoGB (7th Ed)), but I cannot find any sources. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Claverton Pumping Station

I've recently been doing some expansion on Claverton Pumping Station and wondered if someone would take a look and see if it now meets B class - any suggestions for what else is needed to get it to GA quality would also be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Grand union canal river soar

I just stub-sorted this - someone who knows about canals and can write reasonable English might like to tidy it up (and probably Move to a new title) before it gets deleted! PamD 18:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not marked on my inland waterways map. However, the route as described seems to correspond to sections of the Loughborough Navigation, the Leicester Navigation and the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Union Canal. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's basically the River Soar ( I used to live very close & drink in the canal side pubs) & could possibly be merged with that article.— Rod ^talk 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually part of the Grand Union Canal Leicester line, though the line of the Soar below Leicester is not usually referred to by that name. The biggest section of canal is the Loughborough cut. Currently the River Soar article is linked from the Grand Union Canal under both Leicester Navigation and Loughborough Navigation. Under the policy of having a different article for navigations it could well be called the "River Soar Navigation" which had acts of parliament in 1776 and 1791 (not mentioned in the River Soar article), but only as far as Leicester although Cumberlidge also marks the section above Leicester as the River Soar Navigation. It also has the old Melton Mowbray Navigation as a branch. Chris55 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Converting OSGB36 (OS grid refs) to coords on various lists

I have started a discussion about converting the OSGB36 (OS grid refs) on various lists including List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal to use Template:Coord, as I think this offers advantages for users worldwide (who may be unfamiliar with the OS system) and the use of Template:GeoGroupTemplate to enable mapping on googlemaps etc. I have been told that a bot could be tasked to do this, however this would be quite a significant change and would not want to do it without consensus. If anyone has any comments could they join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Automagically converting OSGB36 to coord?.— Rod ^talk 16:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Soho Loop

I changed the title of the requested article "Soho Branch Loop Line" to the simpler "Soho Loop", as given on my British Waterways map.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Canals of Britain

I have recently noticed Template:Canals of Britain on many pages. It says at the top "Navigable Canals", but am not sure what this means. Dukart's Canal is listed, despite being closed since 1787. Several of the Irish canals are dubious in this category, and I am not sure if Swansea Canal can really be counted as navigable.

Also, following the discussion above on navigations, do we need a similar template for them, and maybe one for dead canals? Navigations like the River Nene and River Great Ouse do not seem to be much different from the Aire and Calder Navigation or the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation in concept, only in name. Is the South Forty-Foot Drain a navigable canal, and should I add it to the list? What about the Witham Navigable Drains and the Cambridgeshire Lodes?

I would be quite happy to produce the templates, based on the Canals of Britain template, if people think it would be useful, and we could decide what goes into each. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I produced a Template:Unnavigable Canals of the United Kingdom, and have added it to lots of articles. I have not yet produced ones for river navigations. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Trying to find appropriate categories for my nascent articles (here and here), I find we have a Category:Birmingham Canal Navigations and a Category:History of Birmingham, West Midlands. Some articles are in both categories, some in only one. Is there an argument for everything in the former category to also be included in the latter category, and keeping the categories completely separate? Or would it be better if the former category were made a subcategory of the latter? Or something else? (I asked this question at the Wikipedia help desk a few days ago, but nobody responded.) What makes an article "historical" anyways?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Many articles are in more than one category, in that it enables people to find articles about particular subject areas more easily. Personally, I would not think of looking at History of Birmingham for articles on the BCN, but then I am part of UK Waterways Project, whereas I can see that if I was part of a Birmingham Project, or interested in Birmingham, History of Birmingham would be entirely appropriate. I think they are sufficiently different that they should be left as is. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of John Williams (engineer)

I am thinking of nominating this stub for deletion. It was created in 2007, and nominated for deletion at the time. Two authors requested a Hangon. I have posted both of them to see if they still think it is worth keeping, but have not yet got a response. It is just one sentence, and I suspect that is all the information available about him. The sentence is confirmed by Hadfield (Canals of the West Midlands p.194). Much the same sentence appears in Skempton's Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers (p.362), in an article on Josias Jessop, but he does not get his own entry. I have found no other refs to him. I have beefed up some pretty unlikely-looking stubs, but this one is beyond me. Can anyone think of a reason for keeping it? Bob1960evens (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Williams_(engineer). Bob1960evens (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The KML map link method, and tagging articles with KML missing

I'm not sure how up to speed this project is on a KML method for creating map links for linear features & outlines. Now there's a proposal to tag suitable articles to add a hidden KML missing category where a KML map link is missing. Discussion here. Please join in and/or acquaint yourself with the KML method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had a look at this, but there is no clear explanation of how the kml file gets generated. It is no good having a missing kml tag unless there is a reasonable expectation that editors might be able to fix it. A tag which only boffins can resolve is bad news. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Stub class articles

I have been working through Category:Stub-Class UK Waterways articles, to try to reduce their number. I have removed a few from UKW, as they were for minor streams, which were unnavigable, and added content to quite a few, particularly those for individual canals, tunnels, waterway trusts and engineers. The total left is now 203, and there are a few other articles I might be able to improve, but that leaves over 180 about individual locks or junctions. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how articles about subjects with such limited scope can be improved, and where there are reliable sources? I know on the River Thames, each lock article covers the reach up to the next lock, but that would not help much on many canal locks. (I also note that Category:United Kingdom canal stubs is a rather different list, since we seem to have a number of articles with a UKW stub tag, which are not part of UKW on the talk page and vice versa.) All ideas gratefully received! Bob1960evens (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Bob. But can someone explain to me why we have two "Stub" categories which appear to largely overlap and have other oddities? e.g. Bow Creek appears in both lists but I can only find the canal stub category. Is Stub-Class UK Waterways articles simply the intersection of 2 other categories? Also Benson Lock appears on canal stubs but it's not on a canal. Do we need both, or is it just a historical anomaly which we can't get rid of? Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom canal stubs is generated by {{UK-canal-stub}} and is for article pages, whereas Category:Stub-Class UK Waterways articles is generated by {{WikiProject UK Waterways|class=stub}} and is for talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have found a way to do junctions, so the total of stub class articles is currently 185, with 15 more junctions to go. But I still have no clues as to how to make an article about a lock more than stub class. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If data on the number of boats using the lock in one year is available for several different years, it might be interesting to describe how usage of the lock has changed over time. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Stub articles are now down to 130, but I am running out of ideas. I would love to sort the Maidenhead Waterways one, but have not found any sources yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bridges

I'm wondering if we can make canal bridge terminology clearer and more consistent. We had nothing on split bridge so I briefly explained it within the roving bridge article and created a redirect, though there seems to be some disagreement over the use of the term "roving bridge" itself. Now I find a lot of our canal articles use the term accommodation bridge (currently a red link). Is this yet another name for a roving bridge (along with turnover bridge, changeover bridge, and side bridge!) or a more general term? Incidentally, a nice photo of a split bridge would be useful. The only one near me is literally underneath the M5 motorway so it's difficult to get a decent shot.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

An accommodation bridge was to allow passage to the riparian landowners after the cut had sliced up their property. It was use for railroads and trunk roads as well, so doesn't really have a place alongside the more specialised turnover (etc.) bridge, which was canal-only.

A split bridge image is available—just tell me where to put it!

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Image added to Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, pending the outcome of deliberations here. Many more on Commons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Our List of bridge types could do with some canal bridge types too. (I put a roving bridge there, if that is the correct term.) There are some creative commons photos better illustrative of the "split" available on Geograph.org.uk.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)