Talk:Fourteen Locks

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK Waterways Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways 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.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Fourteen Locks map.

Staircase or not.

Anon post to article contains WP:OR and has been partly removed for discussion here:

Individual LocksUsing these locks the canal level was raised 160 ft (50 m) in just 800 yd (740 m).
This is where people can get confused, these are not staircase locks. The Cefn flight of Fourteen Locks are not a staircase. They are individual locks with their own top and bottom gates, with small pounds of water between them.
The locks, side PONDS, overflows and pounds (the bit between each individual lock) were designed with conservation of water in mind, by the engineer, Thomas dadford Junior.

More WP:OR: I checked Google maps and, through the foliage, there are indeed side ponds, as the poster indicates. I will try to expand on his/her point, with references, unless another editor gets round to it before I do. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the article regarding the erroneous 'staircase lock' terminology, various photos plus the new reference show the run to have intermediate pounds. Comment on national significance retained to some extent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdef123456 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the resolution, the anon post was not Original Research, which requires there to be no sources to which the information could have been referenced. It was just unreferenced. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourteen Locks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321212200/http://www.fourteenlocksetr.co.uk/ETR/Restoration_Blog/Entries/2011/3/19.html to http://www.fourteenlocksetr.co.uk/ETR/Restoration_Blog/Entries/2011/3/19.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]