Talk:Foxton Locks

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Foxton Locks was copied or moved into Foxton Inclined Plane with this edit on 21:43, 15 November 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Ancient Monument

Could be have a reference for its designation as an Ancient Monument? --JBellis (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a reference to the removal of the incline from the monuments at risk register as a result of work carried out by the Inclined Plane Trust but I cannot find a reference showing that it is a scheduled ancient monument. Tina Cordon (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is now in place but a Scheduled Ancient Monument reference is still needed. Tina Cordon (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for the Inclined Plane?

A lot of this article is about the inclined plane rather than the locks. Should this not simply be a cross-reference to a seperate article? Hymers2 (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect (Foxton Inclined Plane) which is almost as old as the locks article itself (2003/2004). There is plenty of material/potential for the Plane to exist separately -- is there enough for the Locks to stand alone? It would make it easier to classify and link the appropriate structures. Obviously, both articles will need strong cross-linking. I would say "go ahead"!

EdJogg (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they could exist as separate articles. Tina Cordon (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an infobox Historic Site on the basis that it works well as a single article. The site and its history are very closely integrated. I hope the infobox helps a bit with that, setting out some of the different historic elements, but if there is a better infobox, or a better way of using it, that would be good to see. RobinLeicester (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics

The Popular Mechanics article listed in Further Reading can be read but not downloaded at Google Books. Tina Cordon (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

URL

The URL of the governing body is not referenced anywhere on the page and all the external links seem irrelevant to the Canal & River Trust official page.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).:It is already cited in the Wikipedia page that "Governing body British Waterways (The Canal & River Trust from summer 2012)[1]"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Official URL: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/museums-and-attractions/foxton-locks

109.111.204.242 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)SL[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foxton 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/20110927044301/http://www.fipt.org.uk/lift.html to http://www.fipt.org.uk/lift.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) 03:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

This is not a B- class article where 'Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. I am generously calling this a C.