Talk:Macclesfield Canal

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Macclesfield Canal map.

Canal length - inconsistency ??

"The Macclesfield Canal [...] runs 26 miles (42 km) from Marple Junction [...] to a junction [...] near Kidsgrove." Read on: " The upper section, from Bosley top lock to Marple Junction, offers 26 miles of lock free cruising [...] The lower section, ten miles from Bosley bottom lock to Kidgsgrove"
So what's the true length of the canal? 26 miles as per the first quote, or 26 (upper)+10 (lower) thus 36 miles altogether as implied by the second one? Could someone sort this out ?
Jotel 10:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted! The upper pound is 16 miles Mayalld 07:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jotel 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Added an ext. link to a set of maps. If nobody objects, I'll delete the {{mapneeded}} thingie later. --Jotel 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external map is very nice. However, I think that as a project we ought to aim for an inline map for every canal actually as part of the article (see Peak Forest Canal for an example) Mayalld 07:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features: "the above picture"

The site of the lock remains as a narrows just in front of the bridge in the above picture, overhung by a loading canopy. This style of writing is unsuitable for WP. There is no 'above picture' near the relevant text. Could someone with local knowledge sort it out? --Jotel (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean the picture at the top of the article which has a canopy & narrow bit in front of a bridge. It might be a bit clearer if it was written as 'The site of the lock remains as a narrows overhung by a loading canopy, just in front of the bridge in the above picture.' JMiall ₰ 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rejigged the picture layout. The picture and text had become detatched from each other during the major expansions of the article over the past couple of days Mayalld (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let's hope the text & picture become inseparable from now on :-) --Jotel (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roving bridges

I note that, in the Features section, the roving bridges are locally said to be called 'snake' bridges. In Congleton I regularly heard them called 'snail' bridges due to the resemblence between their spiral construction and the form of a snail's shell. Does anyone have a strong opinion of whether this term should be added or not? --Stooriefit1969 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Engineer

William Crosley (junior) son of William Crosley (senior)? Any thoughts? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some thoughts. They are called William Crosley I and William Crosley II in Skempton (Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers - Vol 1). Crosley I died in 1796, while working on the Rochdale Canal. Crosley II (career from 1802 to 1838, birth and death unknown) was the one who worked on the Macclesfield Canal, among many such projects. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have assessed the article against the criteria for B-class.

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammar and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images
Appropriately understandable

As it meets these criteria, I am aprating it to B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macclesfield Canal. 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/20110918074556/http://www.aquaquero.co.uk/waterways/2/macclesfield-canal to http://www.aquaquero.co.uk/waterways/2/macclesfield-canal

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) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]