Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello

Hello, and welcome to this new project. Andy Mabbett 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Route maps

The route maps still link to the railways legend. This is easy enough to fix, but a subpage of a WikiProject talk page doesn't seem to be the best place to be linking to from the mainspace. I would move the legend somewhere better, but can't figure out what the best option is. Any thoughts? JPD (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth

How feasible would it be, and how useful perhaps, to create an overlay file for Google Earth that shows Britain's canal system?

There are a few paths outlined in [1] that post. Any Gearth fans here? Parrot of Doom 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

google earth is not under a free license. Try http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ .Geni 17:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the kmz files used to create such paths would not be suitable for use on Wikipedia? If so, I'll have a look at that programme you linked. Parrot of Doom 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
KML overlays might be nice to view, but how can such overlays be used in Wikipedia? They could be overlaid on Google Maps, but Wikipedia doesn't have a Google Maps window display. Maybe some other tool can be used to convert such an overlay into a map image to be used in Wikipedia, but that's not quite a use within Wikipedia of the KML file. (SEWilco 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Wikimedia help

I have a tonne of images for the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal in Wikimedia, but none have co-ordinates. If I were to give them all co-ordinates, is there a way in Wikimedia commons of exporting that entire list of co-ordinates to Google Maps, or Google Earth, as is currently the case in the canal page itself? Parrot of Doom 13:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Map and coordinate usage

There is interest in maps expressed here. The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues. I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps. (SEWilco 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Wey & Godalming Navigations

Looking at this article, I see that it lacks a few fundamentals. First, it doesn't really say whether the waterway is still navigable (it is!), doesn't mention how many locks there are nor the boat size limitations imposed by the locks. It doesn't really say that the linking Wey & Arun Canal is definitely not navigable, nor that the Basingstoke Canal is. The towpath should also be mentioned as it is open throughout and links with no less than two National Trails, and itself forms part of the European Long Distance Route E2. I'll have a go at filling these voids, but it would be useful to know if there is an agreed template for completing an article such as this. Stuartsh 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a template, in fact template is probably not a good word to use since it has a specific meaning in WP. See (Guidelines) below.
It seems to me that River Wey and Wey and Godalming Navigations either need to be merged, or the former rewritten to largely exclude the information about the navigation. --Derek Andrews 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a general dislike of merging articles where the subjects can be considered as clearly separate entities, as here. The obvious problem is that the history of the two is inextricably entwined, but anyone wanting information about the navigation is unlikely to care about details of the river upstream of Godalming. Equally, there is probably little to write about the history of river if details of the navigation are excluded! If merged, the Navigation page should probably redirect to the River Wey page, on the basis that the river was there first...
EdJogg 12:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the navigation page was split off the river page last year Talk:River Wey, but the content wasn't deleted from the river page. IMO this was done prematurely, and should have waited until there was more substantial text about the river. I don't have a problem with one page suits all, until it gets too big. It is much better to have one good article covering all aspects of a river, than several stubs. I think the river page should have info about mills, angling, hiking, public access, environment, ecology, drainage, water supply uses etc. It should be fairly obvious when it needs divvying up between different articles. Neither of these are very long.--Derek Andrews 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have since rewritten River Wey, just making a brief mention of the navigation and linking to Wey and Godalming Navigations.--Derek Andrews 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As for your original question, please go ahead and add that information. It is all relevant. This article is rated Start Class and has many gaps Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment--Derek Andrews 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Most appropriate i think would be to add it to River Wey. I mentioned Wey South Path there, but don't know what other path you were refering too.--Derek Andrews 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly help to have a schematic diagram in the Wey and Godalming Navigations article. It is not one that I'm familiar with but User:Bob1960evens produced a very good one for the River Don Navigation Template:River Don Navigation map. So something along the same lines for the Wey and Godalming Navigations would be a great start to improving it.Pyrotec 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Map added. I can take a hint! Bob1960evens 10:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

I was thinking the other day that there should be a guideline article similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements but for writing about waterways, ie Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/How to write about waterways. Comments please. --Derek Andrews 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#New_or_Updated_Guidelines--Derek Andrews 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome such a guideline. Some of the existing articles seem to have some consistency to them, but that may be because people have simply copied what they've already seen. Formalising the format of articles might not only improve the readability, but prompt people to fill gaps in articles. Hmallett 09:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've plagiarised from the above link. Have a look at User:Hmallett/Sandbox. If it's OK, we can put them on the project pages. If not, feel free to edit the page. Hmallett 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Good work. I have made a few changes and additions, most notably:
 
Article scope
Navigable rivers may end up having two articles describing the river. The one covered by this project would be the one describing the river as a navigation, and would be titled River xxxx Navigation, or similar based on the company name. A second article may be written about the natural river and might include content about the whole catchment area, tributaries, ecology etc.
Where navigations have changed ownership or merged, it may be appropriate in complex cases to have multiple articles describing the history of them. One article, using the current name, should describe the waterway as it stands today, and outline the history. Other articles may describe the history of the component parts using the historical names, but only up the point at which the name change occurs. A good candidate for changing under this guideline would be Ellesmere Canal.

Assesment importance class

While the guidelines for how to rate quality of articles in the assesment project is fairly compehensive, I feel there could be scope for ensuring that the importance rating could be made more consistent. Currently, I rate articles importance on how relevent I feel they are to UK Waterways overall. We could standardise this slightly though, by saying (for example): Active waterways - High importance; Abandoned waterways - mid importance; Active canal junctions - mid importance; Abandoned canal junctions - low importance; Canal engineers who worked on multiple canals - mid importance... And so on. While there could be flexibility, this could provide more consistency. Hmallett 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scary that we are both thinking the same thing! I've had a bash at a table which represents my gut feeling on importance. It shows where I am likely to rate any particular article on importance. Would value feedback on it. If we can get some consensus, we can move it to the project page as a project guideline Draft UKW importance scale. Thoughts? Mayalld 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd change some of the classifications slightly (such as short, unconnected navigable canals I would put as higher than Low), but on the whole I'm of the opinion that it's worthwhile, and I'd vote for the adoption of Mayalld's template, then refine some of the importance classes slightly. Hmallett 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the table shows a very contemporary view of the waterways - those currently open or being restored. There are many pioneering, strategic to the Industrial Revolution, or heavily used canals which might be considered of higher importance than the table currently shows. Perhaps historic importance should be mentioned? :) Oosoom Talk to me 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Very true. I've been bold and moved the table into the project space. I will now tweak it to reflect this point, and would invite others to do likewise on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/Assessment. Mayalld 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The only problem now is that plenty of articles are ranked far too lowly for importance! Will rerank as time allows. Hmallett 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It does show that we have all been very conservative in ranking importance. Mayalld 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Flatboat - UK or not?

The page Talk:Flatboat has been tagged for this project, but I'm not sure of the UK relevence. Can others take a look please? Thanks Hmallett 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with. Hmallett 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This many be of interest

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/Articles by size — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How did the various possibly unrelated settlements get in there? Simply south 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There were either on the Cat or page the list was pulled from.Geni 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Case for Reassessment Needed

Is there a case for adding a re-assessment needed option to the Waterways Project banner? I now have five articles which were stubs, which I have expanded considerably, but have no idea how they get re-assessed. I guess the guys who do the re-assessing are often busy with other things, and I wondered if a reassess=yes option, like the mapneeded=yes option, would enable editors to call attention to the fact that they have made significant changes to an article, rather than just hoping that an assessor notices the changes. If the quality rating had not changed, the assessor could just change it back to reassess=no, and the editor would at least know that someone had considered it. Thanks. Bob1960evens 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob, the mapneeded option, Unref option, etc, =yes adds a flag to the article talkpage and adds the talkpage to a directory of mapneeded or unref articles. It is probably quicker to add the articles that need reassessing to the WikiProject UK Waterways Open tasks section. I'm not aware of any projects that have a reassessment needed flag (but I could be wrong).Pyrotec 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had not thought of that. Bob1960evens 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New River

This is just a small query. Would the New River be covered by this project? I'm not sure on it being navigable but it is described as both a canal and waterway and is man-made. It supplies water as it's main purpose or at least used to 100 years ago. etc Simply south (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit on the edge of the project scope, but runs the risk of falling between several. I don't see why we shouldn't include it. EdJogg (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll tag it. Simply south (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

James Abernethy

I have created this stub through my work with WP:CEng, Abernethy was the engineer on several canals in Scotland. Just bringing it to the attention of this project in case you want to tag it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and have now done so. Simply south (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two map templates on a page

I have hit a problem on the Grand Western Canal page. I wanted to include two map templates, one for the canal as built, and another to show the grand scheme of linking the Bristol Channel to the English Channel. The second template puts a main title into the article, which I don't want, and putting both templates at the top leaves a large space before the text starts. Any suggestions gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, This article Caledonian Railway Main Line has two (railway) templates in, it was produced by Stewart, it may help with a solution. It appears to put the secondary title in, but perhaps I'm wrong.Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Pyrotec. The problem was in my second template, so I removed a line and it is sorted. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How to write about...

Hello UK Waterways team,

I just wondered if anybody would be interested in developing a How to write about rivers (or WP:UKRIVERS) guideline? It would form part of WP:UKGEO's series of guidelines on writing about and standardising the rivers of the United Kingdom articles. We could look at a simillar WP:UKCANALS guideline too.

For an example of what I mean, you take a look at WP:UKCITIES - which have been employed very successfully for UKGEO. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look further up the page at the Guidelines section. I modified the cities article for canals and navigable rivers a month ago. As there is obviously some more interest in this I'll be bold and add it to the project page. Hmallett 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you (I totally forgot). User:Hmallett/Sandbox looks like a good start yes. There are some tweaks needed (of course) and I would urge as much input as possible from this team, but it looks great to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New Map_needed=full category

I notice that there is discussion on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation page about the fact that route diagrams are not maps, and that ultimately they should be replaced with real maps. Is there any concensus for the replacement, because they seem to serve quite different functions? I think a lot of useful information would be lost if the diagrams were discarded. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I or others can tweak the template to distinguish between maps and diagrams, if there is a consensus. Diagrams seem to be perfectly acceptable on railway articles; and that is where our template and diagram came from - but some railway articles have both. I would not like this perceived need for maps on one article to drive out diagrams which are far easier to use than a map; and generally take up less room as they are linear. For example see this: Kilmarnock and Troon Railway - its a diagram in map form and its got only four stations (I quite like it, so I'm not knocking it - its just another way of doing diagrams). If someone needs a real map, then it will need to be one that is out of copyright; and there is always Nicholsons, as an external reference.Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The template was amended by User:Mayalld in September 2007, so that has already been put into effect.Pyrotec (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, templates are much better than maps in most circumstances, and can convey a lot more information. I was just concerned at the suggestion that the map should replace the diagram. The whole discussion seemed to hinge round whether adding a diagram fulfilled the request for a map. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that the original map flag on that article was placed by User:Mayalld on 17 September 2007, from the discussions he appears to be happy with a diagram as he removed the flag on 24 September after the diagram had been added. The author who raised the current debate is not a member of this Wikiproject.Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hammerton's Ferry

Would any of you be able to take a look at Hammerton's Ferry, which I've just written? This is my first foray into maritime transport, and I'm not familiar with terminology etc, so I may have made stupid mistakes. Thanks in advance... — iridescent 00:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this ferry, nor do I know the location, so I can't vouch for its factual accuracy in any way. However, I have just (quickly) read the article and can see no terminology that is obviously out-of-place. (Indeed, I couldn't see anything to change, so either I read it too quickly, or your article writing is of a very high quality!)
EdJogg (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! — iridescent 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tavistock Canal references

The Tavistock Canal article has been edited by an unknown user (IP address only), and a number of the statements are attributed to R Waterhouse, Morwellham Quay Archaeologist. I am not sure what to do with them. Are they made by him? Are they original research? Any suggestions gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look and it is a difficult question, it could be a good intentioned edit, or it could be spam. I'm tempted to do a copyedit rather than treat the R Waterhouse bit as spam. That IP user has only done one edit, so there is insufficient evidence to say that it is spam. I'll go through Current Archaeology and see what is in print: the article can be properly referenced (and changed if necessary).Pyrotec (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up and added some more references. Some of the changes made were correct, others appeared to be points of view unsupported by the in-line citations. I still don't like some of the web refs, some are almost spam, with no verification.Pyrotec (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Medway Navigation

I have split the Navigation from the River Medway. There may be implications for links and project focus. Contributions welcome.ClemRutter (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Winding (canal)

I've tried my hand at writing this one. I wonder if "winding hole" might not be a better title. As yet there are no references since what is written comes from personal observation, except for the speculation as to how horse-drawn boats turned. --Hymers2 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I've wikified by adding sections, and added the first reference (note that you don't have to repeat the article title as a section header. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
AH! problem! Winding hole already exists, and duplicates the content. The content of the two needs merging, and one making into a redirect. Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating to see how it turns out when dealt with by a "professional". I have looked through my fairly extensive canal book collection and can find only three references to winding, two of them in books long out of print. I'm not sure about your etymology; in my experience the wind is invariably a nuisance when turning - sod's law and all that.--Hymers2 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what BWs reference is for the prevailing wind theory. It doesn't actually make sense; the prevailing wind in the UK is south-west so unless a winding hole was positioned in the right place it would be of little relevance. Since canals twist and turn across the landscape it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of winding holes can be placed to take advantage of the prevailing wind. In any case the provision of winding holes in the past was more commonly related to trip patterns for the boats; they were placed where boats needed them at unloading points, not some arbitrary theory related to wind.--Hymers2 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have any page specific references from those books, that could be turned into inline references for the article, let me know (Wikipedia much prefers inline references to "see also" items).
As to the etymology. Whilst one can argue the practicalities of it till the cows come home, it is an etymology that can be found in numerous sources. We could probably do with a source that discusses it more, so that we can expand it. Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page references are 140-41 in Marsh, 44 in Yorke and 62-4 in Hankinson. All of these are concerned with the technique of using a WH, rather than any background. I will investigate the etymology - I suspect some BW PR man of making it up; or perhaps its a wind-up? (Sorry).--Hymers2 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Converted into inline references - the article is expanding nicely. Mayalld (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, to be eligible for 'DidYouKnow', this article would need to be more than double its current length. A 5-fold expansion (counting characters, but not including references, syntax, etc) is required, so when starting from a 'large' stub such as this, quite a lot of information is needed. (Date-wise you can class it as 31st Jan, so time is just about on your side!)
As for BW positioning holes to suit the prevailing wind, why is this needed? Hire boats will invariably have an engine, so why do you need to use the wind? I have seen the professionals turning a 50-70ft trip boat by the lock in Guildford without touching the banks -- all done by deft application of the throttle (and the river current)! It didn't quite work like that when I tried it!
EdJogg (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument is over the origin of the term and whether unpowered boats made use of the wind to turn, thus giving rise to the word. I am sure BW do not take account of the wind when creating new ones now. Of the three I mention in the Napton area, one was created to reduce the use of Braunston junction as a turning point, one to make it unnecessary to go up Napton locks to turn and the other may have been a restoration of an old one serving a wharf at that point by the Napton Bridge. Similarly, a new one was provided at the foot of Watford locks (Leicester arm)to stop boats wasting water by paassing through the bottom lock simply to turn.--Hymers2 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal?

We are getting to a point where we have a good many pages (over 500) in scope for the project.

Are we now at the point where we can spin off a portal to showcase waterways related stuff to the general (non-editor) reader?

If so, do we make it a UK specific portal (same scope as the project), or would a portal that takes in Inland Waterways worldwide be a better idea?

Thoughts.....

Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A portal is a window often found on the side of a ship. Simply south (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
He he he, couldn't resist! :) Anyway, is there a worldwide waterways project? Simply south (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably be a good idea. How about UK one for now and worldwide later? Simply south (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And i am currently constructing it. See Portal:UK Waterways. Please help me improve it. Simply south (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

River Medway

Article has greatly changed this week, could do with a reassessment. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through and it is still currently B class. Perhaps if more referencing was added to the article generally, this has the potential for GA. Simply south (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Medway watermills should be tagged for this project. What do others think? Hmallett (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say it depends on how much the mills objected to navigation of the river.Geni 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

UK Geo rivers guideline

Hi, A new guideline has recently been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers & I've pointed the primary author towards this project - as I thought experts on here might be able to help. My take is that the guideline on here should probably be used for canals by WP:UKGEO which is developing guidelines for settlements, counties etc, but that another one (or an adaption) might be needed for rivers. Discussion is probably best at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers.— Rod talk 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have created a page for this - Liverpool Canal Link - if anyone could have a look at my ham-fisted approach to writing and create a work of poetry from it, feel free :) Anyone know any free maps that could be used to illustrate the route? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being quite modest. I had a look at it, did some minor copy editing; and I've rated it UKW class=Start. Have you thought about a schematic such as those at: Category:Waterway routemap templates; or alternatively, using web links to one of the map/aerial photograph providers?23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I had considered a map as you suggested, I did the Bridgewater Canal map and the MBB canal map amongst others, but the trouble is that I don't yet know the exact route that the link will take. Maybe I'll do a bit of searching this week to find a blueprint or similar, and then I can create something.
Its all very impressive down there btw, I just wish that more canals could see that kind of investment! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Could i just request someone help me construct Portal:UK Waterways? Simply south (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A Pylon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_Narrow_Canal#A_Pylon - I think this is incorrect, or at least the wording should be altered to 'on a navigable canal'. On the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal on an infilled section here - http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.530832,-2.331922&spn=0.000599,0.001792&t=h&z=20 , there is at least 1 pylon that straddles the canal - perhaps 2 (a bit to the northwest). Do I get a prize for realising this? :) I would have taken a picture but theres a big fence blocking access to the towpath Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it! :) If there is no water in it then it is no longer a canal. Can you provide any information relating to if the Pylons were constructed before or after the former canal was infilled? Richard Harvey (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Almost certainly they would have been built after the canal was infilled, which I presume would have been around the date of construction of that section of the M62 (early 70s). The coping stones are all still there and in line, its just you can't walk up on the towpath because of a fence (protecting old sludge lagoons that were moved for the motorway). The canal there appears completely intact apart from being full of dirt rather than water :) I think a note should be made at least, how it should be worded I'm uncertain Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded the HNC version to make it clear that;
  1. It is the only instance on a navigable canal
  2. There are other potential cases on derelict canals
  3. All result from pylons being installed after abandonment.
Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ye olde images

I wonder if people may be interested in this chap - http://www.geograph.org.uk/statistics/breakdown.php?by=takenyear&u=796 - who has amassed a huge number of ye olde pictures of various canals around the country. There are too many for me to sift through, but other contributors especially for the Rochdale Canal and Grand Union Canals, may be interested (there are many more besides, including rivers, bridges, boats, trains..). All the images are compatible with commons licences. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10

Happening this sunday.Geni 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox template - what to include

Canals are fundamentally different from rivers and will require much more information to define them. They could be considered to be two different entities - original, and contemporary - each with different terminii and numbers of locks. The original ends (there is no start!), based on Act of Parliament and owner, often differ from modern (post 1948) ideas regarding extent (more pragmatically based on junctions).

Canals were often built and opened in in phases.

They may be discontinuous (i.e. Coventry Canal).

Sometimes there are articles for a whole canal and also one or more of its branches. In addition, the Lichfield Canal (proposed restoration) is in fact along the line of the original Wyrley and Essington Canal (a separate article).

The template might include:

  • Historical:
    • Original owner (constructor)
    • Names(s)
    • Engineer(s)
    • Original length
    • Original width
    • Date(s) of Acts
    • Date of start
    • Date of commercial use of part
    • Date of Completion
    • Dates of extension
    • Branches
    • Coordinates of ends of extents (may be more than one pair)
    • Names of terminal junctions/basins
    • Number of original locks
    • Connecting canals, rivers and companies
  • Modern:
    • Owner
    • Names(s)
    • Status (open, unusable, dry, overbuilt, restoration)
    • Width
    • Length
    • Coordinates of ends of extents (may be more than one pair)
    • Names of terminal junctions/basins
    • Number of numbered bridges
    • Number of locks

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit. Just some initial thoughts. :) Oosoom Talk 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good list, in historical I would change width to gauge (as width varies too often on most canals to be meaningful), height (from the source), height (at the end), total drop in height (unless it can be automatically calculated from the latter 2 by some wiki-trickery), and perhaps type of traffic (majority). Modern looks good to me. I would also add 'status' (ie navigable, derelict, destroyed, hidden, etc). An image entry is obviously important. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom

I started this list because waterway organisations are vital to the survival of the canal system. I've had problems with users wantign to delete a number of the individual articles, e.g. Association of Nene River Clubs which is in the middle of a lengthy discussion. Is it possible to have a Wikiproject Waterways box on their Talk page? Renata (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a member of the WP you could add one.Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

infobox template

Looking at the various canal articles, I wonder (as someone mentioned to me) if it wouldn't be worth pursuing some kind of infobox for canal articles, like Template:Infobox_River? Looking at River Thames (which uses a similar template) it may give a more unified feel to the many canal articles in the scope of this project? We could also pursue a standard map style for each canal, and make the canal path templates an expandable link instead? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - It is common practice on many groups of articles to use an infobox. There is a common set of 'parameters' associated with canals (length, width, # locks, # bridges, open/close dates etc) so I'd say: go for it! EdJogg (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick play around but frankly I have no idea what I'm doing. Its all a bit complicated for me :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not for the time being. With the maps already eating up so much rightside article space there just isn't room for them in most articles at the moment.Geni 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to alter the map template so that some basic information is displayed at the top? Or perhaps embed the map in such an infobox? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
won't help map templates are already too long. Makeing them olnger isn't going to fix that.Geni 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We should probably move towards using collapsible maps (see Peak Forest Canal for an example) Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That would certianly be worth doing yes. If we introduce it along with info boxes should minimise impact.Geni 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow - are not the maps already in use, collapsible by the 'hide' button? Or are there two types of map template in use? On that note, is it possible to set the map to be closed by default, so that the viewer has to 'reveal' it? This would certainly help articles like Bridgewater Canal where the map is very tall. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is something that people want, then I'm quite happy to code up the template - just let me know what needs to be in there! Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could make a start on this? I'm improving a few canal articles around Greater Manchester and it would be great to have an infobox to use. Right now there is little consistency in the layout of the canal articles in this project. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, go on then! Template:Infobox Canal done, including most of the requested stuff as a first bash at it. Documentatation in the template (now that IS a first for me) Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Whee, thanks, you've done a great job! :) Is it easy to add features to that box? A line about total rise/fall would certainly add to its usefulness. Also, when I entered 14 into the "beam' line, I got a big red error. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we can add to it. It took about an hour to code it. I'll have to see what I can do about that error. It only happens if you have no inches, but leave the blank parameter in place. Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent job mate - I wonder, would it be possible to have more than one entry for 'join' - as some canals join several other canals. Would that be easy to do? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we need an extra parameter, and if so, how many? I just do Canal A<br>Canal B<br>Canal C Mayalld (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs

Two things seem to have been deleted here, firstly Association of Nene River Clubs and secondly, and more importantly, the fall-out seems to have lost us user:Renata. I can quite understand why 8-(

If I take this waterways-related article to WP:DRV, will there be any assistance from this WikiProject? I'm happy to do some legwork over arguing the deletion process, but I know practically nothing about the subject matter and so cannot make promises to do anything about fixing it. Is this Association notable? Is this Association notable according to the standards of WP:N? Can anyone assist with the sort of referencing it needs added, so as to pass the attentions of people with this sort of attitude to content. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a tricky one to call. Whilst Renata is clearly upset about "her" article being deleted, and we, from a waterways perspective, see this as a reasonably notable organisation, we do have to accept that Wikipedia has policies, and standards which an article must meet to prove that it is sufficiently notable to be let in.
Leaving aside any questions of the attitude that some people take to shrunken heads (because it isn't going to get anybody anywhere), we need to look at the article (still in the google cache) in a dispassionate manner.
I had a quick look before deletion, but due to lack of available time couldn't do anything to fix the article, and couldn't find any argument other than WP:ILIKEIT to argue for a keep. As things stood, there was no POLICY BASED argument that could be put forward to retain the article.
For that reason, it will be a tough one to get past DRV. Our best option is probably to get an admin to retrieve a copy of the article into user space.
Once there, the article needs to lose its external links section. EL sections on weakly sourced articles are a red flag for deletion. The same links will do very nicely as references.
We also need info about coverage of the club in sources. These need not be on-line sources, so "WW June 1989 pp19-20" would be just fine!!
Mayalld (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not upset because the article in question was penned by me. I'm exasperated because, for several weeks, various people tried to delete various waterways-related articles without good reasons. For instance, the Forth Canoe Club (Union Canal) has been targeted twice. I did not start the article, but made some contribs. Eventually I found a reference to the Olympics (three canoeists who are members of FCC are in the Beijing Olympic team). Regardless of that, someone tried to delete it. I had to argue again, and yesterday I was able to add a piece of news to the article, i.e. that one of the three has won a silver medal for Team GB.

It's been the same war of attrition about other organisations on "my" List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom, e.g. the Accessible Boating Association which deals purely with disabled people. Someone even tried to get rid of the IWA article on the "National". I can only conclude that these are people who haven't a glimmer of a clue about waterways, organisations, charities etc. Some of them kept referring to "companies", and I had to keep pointing out that these were charities.

I'm just getting tired of having to waste precious time with these users. Some clearly have an agenda which has nothing to do with writing or editing articles, but with getting rid of as many articles as they possibly can. I wouldn't be surprised if they had league tables of deletionists! Renata (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it will always come down to a question of notability, and it isn't particularly relevant whether an organisation is a company or a charity. In creating an article, the very first thing to do is establish that it is notable (per WP:N) and provide inline sources to prove notability. Mayalld (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think a contributing problem was the over-abundance of external links in the presence of no citations. This could have been corrected by paying attention to advice given in WP:EL#References and citation, which states that if an EL has been used to provide material for the article, it should be cited as a reference and thereby placed in the references section. I think that might have helped lessen the chance that people would have decided the article was not notable. I would have done this myself if I had come across the AfD before it was deleted, but I have only now come across this discussion and seen what happened. However, I can restore the article to someone's talk page, if they wish to work on it there and get it into as undeletable a state as they can before re-creating it in article-space, if it is thought that this would be a good idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to put it into a subpage of my user space. Mayalld (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. You should now be able to find it on User talk:Mayalld/Article Workspace. I left the title general in case you want to keep the page for other cases like this. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are other cases that people would like the chance of working on, let me know, and I'll try to retrieve them and place them on similar sub-pages of people's userpages for them.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I've never got the hang of citations, that's why I make lots of external links. Renata (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It really is worth getting the hang of them. First because it is the right way to do things, and second because in terms of how somebody who might look to delete an article sees it, they have exactly opposite effects.
An article with no references and loads of external links looks to be nothing more than a vehicle for the links, and linkfarms are fair game. An article with the same links expressed as references will normally be ignored by the deletionist, because these aren't just a link farm, they are links that are shown to be directly relevant to the article. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done

Article copyedited, with ELs turned into proper references, and back in mainspace. Mayalld (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Back at AfD

Despite having converted the external links into references, the article is being proposed for deletion again, although it should be easier to defend now Mayalld (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not come across such detailed scrutiny about an article before. These people must be quite determiend to see the article deleted. The solution is to try to beef up the article quickly. I also think they could have simply tagged the article for extra work rather than immediately nominated it for deletion, but they've done it now. I think the lesson to be learned is to go into overkill mode for something one thinks really deserves to stay.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading through it, I think it would actually be more useful, not less, as a section of River Nene; nothing would be lost, but it would provide a wider context. Taking an analogy from roads, as I know them better than waterways, a number of the subsections in A1 road (London) would be borderline-notablity and not that useful on their own, but work well in a broader context. – iridescent 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That's actually an alternative solution, and one which might be a good fall-back solution. If the resulting section is expanded sufficiently to become quite large in relation to the rest of the article about the river, it would tehn be more solidly justified to be a separate article. The present article could exist as a redirect which points to the relevant section in River Nene. If there is agreement here that this would be a good way forward, it might be possible to pre-empt the AfD by instituting those changes fairly immediately.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Although the article is probably at the lower end of notability, it is on the right side of the line. I would add a 1-liner to the article on the river, and link it to this article with {{main}} Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I would dispute that (and I'm 'on your side'!) I know nothing about the subject and I can't see anything particular which makes it notable. Now, if there was an article on the Cambridge Boatwatch Scheme (is that notable?) then you might just swing it as being one of the founder organisations. But it appears to me to be no more than a society that represents other societies in a slightly wider field. I think even providing it as a 'main' link is shaky -- if it had started as a subsection of the river article you would not yet be thinking of creating a new article out of it. Sorry, just trying to give an 'independent' yet sympathetic opinion. EdJogg (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I started the List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom because without consistent pressure brought to bear by the many hundreds of canal societies, many of the UK canals would still be stagnant ditches. It is the decades of work by these bodies which makes them notable. The societies themselves should not be "buried" in the articles on the waterways. As to "a society that represents other societies" - this is how the Inland Waterways Association started! There is always a practical reason why societies affiliate to another body - look at NABO and NBOC ! Renata (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have some at the deletion debate who have found a good reference, but don't want to mention it to those defending the article. here Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that great a source; the minutes of an ANRC meeting, as published by an ANRC member, doesn't meet the WP:N notability guidelines ('significant coverage', 'independent reliable sources'). Has there actually been any coverage of the ANRC in any press or publications anywhere? --VinceBowdren (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
None of them are great sources, but an accumulation of independent, if not great sources tells as to notability. I just find it odd that somebody is tipping the AfD nominator a wink about another source, but effectively keeping it a secret, so as not to "hand it to various people on a plate". That is playing silly games in my book! Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept

The AfD has been closed as Keep, so the article stays. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Canals template

I have created a template Template:Canals of Britain. I hope people like it. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome. G-Man ? 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I like it; but the title is not precise, or it is still work in progress, as it is only a list of navigable canals, i.e there are no unnavigable canals linked in it.Pyrotec (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Theres at least one un-navigable canal in there (MBB) but I think its a nice little addition to articles. I'm aiming for FAC for the MBB canal and this certainly makes it look more professional. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Woops, I did not spot those "daggers", I was only looking at the section titles, which all say navigable canals of {England/Scotland/Wales}.Pyrotec (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is there's lots of canals which are semi-navgable, or being restored, and it's not entirely obvious what to do with them. So the daggers were the bast idea I could come up with to qualify them. I thought about adding a section on entirely defunct canals, but decided against it. Because A) of the space it would take up. and B) Defunct canals are by definition not waterways. but if other people think it would be a good idea to include them I might.
I have also considered adding a section on notable features such as aquaducts or boat lifts etc. such as the Anderton Boat Lift. I don't know whether this would be a good idea? G-Man ? 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the problem, but the title is "Canals" not "waterways", so defining an unnavigable canal as not being a waterway is irrelevant; and there are some canals that are unnavigable, but are used for moving water. Should the title of the template be "Navigable Canals", "Navigable waterways", etc, not "canals". Don't get me wrong, I like the template, this is just a discussion over the scope of what is in it / naming of the template. There is some attraction to having notable features, but how to we select just a few? We could start with say Anderton boat lift, I'd add the Falkirk wheel, but then I might to tempted to add some defunct ones - which would screw up your definition; then there are locks - Bingley Five Rise Locks, Tardebigge Locks, Neptune's staircase; aqueducts; tunnels; (swing) bridges; etc. How about constraining it to a table-line of locks, one of lifts, one of aqueducts and one of tunnels, etc, - that way the table would not become too big?Pyrotec (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm expanding List of canal aqueducts in Great Britain at present. You could take your pick from there. Renata (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Must be time to AfD Pontcysyllte as "non-notable" then 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, please..... not even in jest... :-)) Anyway, there's now also a List of canal tunnels in Great Britain for User:G-Man to browse through. Not quite finished though. Renata (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

East Anglian Waterways Association

Here we go again .... only just recovered from the Association of Nene River Clubs, and there's someone trying to delete the East Anglian Waterways Association. It is arguably more notable than ANRC. Can anyone help or advise, please? Renata (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only re-iterate the advice I gave last time. Lots of inline citations are the key to avoiding deletion. Creating an article with no inline citations, and a batch of external links is going to get it deleted. Sorry to sound harsh, but saying that you don't understand how to add references, and pressing on with creating the articles without proper references is not the way forward. Once an article has been deleted, it is many times harder to get people to accept the article when it gets recreated. Creating unreferenced articles will damage the chances of ever getting that article into Wikipedia.
Two suggestions for you;
  1. Create new article as a user sub page, and ask for assistance before they go into mainspace.
  2. Go into "my preferences", select the "Gadgets" tab and add the "reftools" gadget, which will make adding citations easier.
Mayalld (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Thames

You may wish to establish a dialogue with the people at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Thames....Paulbrock (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There Go the Boats

...can be found here - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1217856436373470397 - in case anyone is interested. You've probably seen it already but I hadn't, and quite enjoyed watching it :) The empty locks on the MBB can be seen from 5.53 onwards. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MBB canal

Just wondered if anyone would care to comment on what else I could do to improve this article, to improve it's rating? Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me already. It gives a lot more detail than, say, the Oxford Canal article.Hymers2 (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made quite a few changes although I feel it needs more work, particularly on the construction and design, and also a section on local wildlife/geology. I am going to nominate it for GA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick update, thanks to those that helped with this article, its been reviewed and has GA status :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this for fac. Gulp. comments here. Parrot of Doom Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of "The Canals of North West England" by Hadfield and Biddle? I need to change some references, no libraries around here have a copy, I'd rather not buy it just for the sake of a few bits of text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a copy yes.Geni 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Another request - anyone got a copy of The River Irwell By John Corbett? I'm lacking a couple of page numbers, I'd rather not drive to the library and spend money parking up for 2 references! Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...and the Derby and Sandiacre Canal Trust

Same here. Renata (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. I have converted the provided links to "references", as these make the article look rather more official (and to comply with WP:MOS). You may care to cite them properly in due course.
Unfortunately, 'society' articles really do need to establish some serious notability to remain here. There are tens of thousands of 'organisations', and all would like to have the free advertising afforded by a WP article; the 'notability' criterion is intended to ensure that only those who warrant it get it. EdJogg (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would add that an article about a canal society when there is no article about the canal itself is going to be VERY difficult to defend. Mayalld (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you guys for all your help and patience. Renata (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Can someone create a user box for participants' profiles? Grunners (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Already exists {{user UKW}} Mayalld (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers =) Grunners (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for UK Waterways

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

UK versus GB?

On my talk page there is an incipient discussion about naming of canal articles. I felt it is better to discuss this here.

User:Derek Andrews started List of canal aqueducts in Great Britain. I expanded it, and then started List of canal tunnels in Great Britain after looking at List of tunnels in the United Kingdom. There is also List of canal locks in Great Britain.

User:SilkTork suggests renaming the articles using "in the United Kingdom". How would this impact on Canals of Ireland? Renata (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer to this is that we move to UK, and accept that the same things will also be talked about in Canals of Ireland. Mayalld (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The canals in all-Ireland fit naturally into one list (and don't split nicely into ROI/NI); so given that canals in NI are already listed, why don't we just stick to GB? Putting in a See Also mention of the irish equivalent article will make sure that readers don't miss out on anything, and we won't end up with the same info in multiple articles (with the risk of them getting out of sync). --VinceBowdren (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A good argument! To be honest (and I'm no expert on Anglo-Irish relationships), this shouldn't be an issue. The Irish Waterways, both north and south, are pretty uncontrovertialy handled by an all-Ireland body. A couple of see-also links in the GB articles would suffice. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My experience with these issues is that what often looks like common sense to non-experts on Anglo-Irish relationships can actually be offensive to one body or other in Ireland as the politics there are quite complex and VERY passionate. As a moderator and one-time member of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have come upon some of the minor disputes arising from these matters. The widespread practice is for ...United Kingdom - and this is the acceptable choice. Matters in which The Republic of Ireland is lumped in with Northern Ireland is fraught with difficulties - no matter how much sense it makes to outsiders. Bear in mind that those guys feels so passionate about these matters that they have been at war with each other. There are guidelines in place Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) and being drawn up Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. My recommendation is that either we go with the accepted non-problematic practice of ...United Kingdom, or we raise the matter with the people who know more about this. It could well be that people's assumptions that ...in GB and ...in Ireland are acceptable are correct, but it would be good to get advice on the matter. Just to be sure to be sure. SilkTork *YES! 13:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dispute it, and certainly don't feel particularly passionate about it either way. However, in this case I just don't see that anybody is worried about it. The waterways of NI are most sensibly covered with the Irish Waterways, not the British ones. If there are people who are actually offended by this, lets look at it, but until that is the case, leave well alone.Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland for contributions. Hopefully with their help we can avoid putting our foot in it too badly. --VinceBowdren (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime --VinceBowdren (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)That's a good idea. I'll also raise it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). This: Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom seems a useful approach. SilkTork *YES! 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally geographic articles are based on the geographic entity, i.e. the Island. The canals are quite old and dont really pay attention to the border Shannon-Erne_Waterway & Ulster Canal both cross it. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that for canal tunnels, one for the island of Britain and one for the island of Ireland would be appropriate. Just be aware that there is a big debate on IMOS at the moment on the use of "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" as a name for the state, so this page might just get some stray fire from that battle. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there would be many objections to the creation of a UK list, but there definitely needs to be an Ireland list. Water tends to flow across borders, etc. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with List of canals in the United Kingdom and Canals in Ireland, with some duplication between the two. Crispness (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Picking up on Mayalld's comment above - I've just looked into it and transport is one of the areas that comes under the North/South Ministerial Council. This would mean that all transport articles, cats and lists can safely be Foo in Ireland (well, possibly - there is the ongoing debate over the use of the word "Ireland"). A decision then needs to be made as to if there should be Foo in GB (excluding NI) or Foo in UK (including NI - and with some duplication with Foo in Ireland). Are the people who live in NI comfortable with being grouped solely with Ireland rather than also with the UK? I thought part of the reasons for The Troubles is that some people in NI see themselves as part of Britain while others see themselves as part of Ireland, and so groupings like Foo in the UK with Foo in Ireland - including duplication, are preferred to groupings like Foo in GB with Foo in Ireland where the Foo in NI are cut off from the UK and grouped solely with Ireland. SilkTork *YES! 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view either way; but what is "Foo"? Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Another angle on the topic: Organisations: There are IWA Inland Waterways Association (England and Wales), SIWA (Scottish Inland Waterways Association), and IWAI (Inland Waterways Association Ireland covering the island of Ireland; has an annual exchange with SIWA. Renata (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The organisations, like the canals and tunnels themselves, fit into the constituent parts of both the UK and Ireland. A decision still has to be made to go along with the widespread and uncontroversial grouping of Foo in UK plus Foo in Ireland or try for the more problematic Foo in GB plus Foo in Ireland where there is no certainty that whatever we say today will be the case in a month's time. It may be that just for conformity's and harmony's sake it might be easier to go with the accepted and uncontroversial Foo in UK - if nothing else, it'll put the canal tunnels in line with most other "...in UK" articles, and readers and editors approve of consistency in a reference book. If there are no strong feelings either way, then putting the odd few canal articles that are "...in GB" into line with the other geographic articles that are "...in UK" might make sense. But I'm backing out of this one now - I may have started a little drama where there wasn't a need. I saw the name "...in GB" and I raised the issue that "...in UK" might be less problematic and in keeping with consensus and convention - and now we are here!
Foo is Foo - a word used to represent any topic. It's commonly used in discussions like this on Wikipedia. It's a lovely word. Fooooooooo. Sort of babyish fun. Like marshmallow. SilkTork *YES! 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is still needed, but assuming that the term 'British Isles' (ie Ireland and GB) wasn't needed, wanted or otherwise used, The current WP:BITASK offers the use of both "island of Ireland" and "Ireland (island)" as disambiguators. So the two geographical examples would be List of canals in Great Britain and List of canals of Ireland (island). The Irish Sea seems to make "canals of the UK" a bit odd to me, but if you choose List of canals in the UK, you could also use List of canals in Ireland and mean just the republic if you want: In my opinion, anyway. Using "Republic of" is the other option.

The safest right now, IMO, is the geographical approach of List of canals in Great Britain and List of canals of Ireland (island). I suppose it depends how strictly they adhere to the 'UK' with canals.

There is a proposal forming on IMOS that will very possibly lead to there being "Ireland" and "Island of Ireland" articles for the state and island respectively. If it passes, the Republic of Ireland article will then be for just the 'ROI' as a term. I personally back it - but you will find different opinions on this issue for sure - especially right now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt is jumping the gun somewhat. BITASK is a work-in-progress. Nothing has been set in stone yet. It has no official status. And the notion that there is some kind of consensus for change in the naming of Ireland related issues is pie in the sky, IMHO. Crispness (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong at all with my 'least offensive' geographical suggestion here, and I merely informed people of the current situation. So how about you get off my back? I said the "current" BITASK - people aren't stupid. Wikipedian's can read words and follow links: they don't always need User:Crispness to kindly interpret other's comments for them. I said there is a proposal forming at IMOS, and there unquestionably is - there is a very strong support for making one from a number of editors (as you have seen), and I am willing to start it myself when the debate takes us there. Where did I say what would definitively happen? There will be other proposals too around the 'disam page' idea without doubt. You've simply skewed what I said to get in just another dig at me. If you want a demeaning wikilink yourself - try not to be a WP:dick.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Non Issue?

I think we need to take a step back here.

Has anybody actually complained that they are deeply unhappy with the status quo?

If not, then why are we agonising over an imaginary problem?

Mayalld (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Crispness (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's have a look at similar articles...
The other articles, with the exception of Foo in Ireland, deal with the subject matter per country. USA, New Zealand, Netherlands, Iceland, etc. Why should this article be any different. It seems illogical to me that it would.
Furthermore, the categories (with the exception of the current cat for England) refer to the country (UK) and not the island (GB): Lists of buildings and structures in the United Kingdom | Tunnels in the United Kingdom | United Kingdom canal stubs | United Kingdom building and structure stubs.
SilkTork, as an aside, I feel I must point out to you that some people in Northern Ireland.. let's call them unionists, want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom - not a part of Britain. Most unionists that I know of also see themselves as part of Ireland. It would be a physical impossibility to not be a part of Ireland, and ditto to be part of Britain.
Anyway, I would suggest that this article is changed to follow convention and the categories listed. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If we can leave aside the political stuff, and look at hard facts;
The waterways of Northern Ireland are not extensive (1 navigable river, 2 navigable locks and 3 disused canals), and (when fully restored) form part of a single system with the waterways of the Republic of Ireland, under the management of a single cross-border navigation authority.
For practical purposes, and in terms of who uses these waterways, it makes perfect sense to put the Northern Irish waterways in with the ROI waterways. I say again that unless we actually find somebody who IS offended by the current split, we should leave it as it is. Mayalld (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Within reason, I don't think an encyclopaedia should concern itself with offending people. For practical purposes and in terms of who uses the waterways, I think that it makes sense to include the Northern Irish waterways etc in the articles about UK waterways (etc). Waterways Ireland is a cross-border co-operative venture, but the actual laws governing navigation etc are determined by a combination of British and specifically Northern Irish authorities (the Department of the Environment, for example). I (the way I have done changed it now) also actually cuts down on the possibility of offending people. There is no good reason to not include the canals of Northern Ireland in both articles, as there is relevance to both. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Canals of Britain or Canals of the United Kingdom

User:Setanta has moved many of the articles ending in "in Britain" to "in the United Kingdom". Renata (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal at FAC

Hi there. The MBB canal is currently at FAC - its second attempt. I'd appreciate any comments, review is taking place on this page. Unless I'm mistaken this would be the first article about a canal to reach FAC if it passes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It passed :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations - that's a lot of your hard work paid off. --VinceBowdren (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New redirect staircase locks created

Just because it seemed a sensible thing to have.

FYI: Staircase locks redirects to the appropriate sub-section of lock (water transport), and you may find it more useful to use than the direct anchored link.

EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear features

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

List of <feature>s in Great Britain

There are several articles listing canal tunnels, aqueducts, junctions, etc.

  1. Most of these have been renamed 'of the United Kingdom', but List of canal basins in Great Britain, at least, has not, and
  2. there are still numerous links to the old 'in Great Britain' pages (including from the 'Junction' list).
  3. Furthermore, Template:Canals of the United Kingdom includes links to only a few of these pages (where it should logically include all of them), and
  4. this template is not necessarilly on all list pages.

Again I am highlighting a maintenance task appropriate for the project but suggesting someone else does it (my ToDo list is growing at an alarming rate!), for which I apologise. Nevertheless, maybe someone has half an evening free to tidy this lot up?

EdJogg (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1 & 3 done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheddar Canal

Looking at the usage of Galton's Canal has made me wonder if the Cheddar Canal (OS Explorer 141 ST452517) was ever used as a navigation? I had always assumed it was simply a drain, but maybe not. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was Hadfield didn't know about it.Geni 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Remainder waterway status

I have created redirects for Commercial waterway, Cruising waterway and Remainder waterway, as these seemed to be definitions that would need explanation on every page they were used. As created by me, each 'waterway' has a small 'w' (to match the existing usage within WP); if the legal designation requires a big 'W' then we should rename the redirects to suit and ensure that all articles use mixed case when referring to these statuses.

At present the redirects all link to British Waterways#Transport Act 1968, since that's where the best definition seems to reside currently.

Other project members may wish to expand these redirects into full articles, each including a list of canals with that status, maybe?; or at the very least, provide more comprehensive definitions for the terms.

EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up the project page

Its a bit untidy don't you think? How about we start putting things into tables? For a start, the users could all go in something like this table on my sandbox? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say the first thing to do is decide if we want to keep the 'completed work' (strike-out'd text) easily visible, and if so, move it to a sub-page or archive; if not to be kept it could be deleted. As for your table, I would lose the heading with the graphic as it is rather overpowering, but the rest seems promising.
As I think some of the project founders are no longer active at WP, if you wanted to do more active maintenance then I shouldn't think anyone would mind...
EdJogg (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Right well I've made a few changes, copied most of the template from the UK Geography project. Let me know what you think. It should also be a good way of finding out who is still active in this project, since members can update their details using the simple template on the project page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I happen to like the UK Geography project template; and the UK Waterways implementation is now "cleaner" than before. The "you don't need to be British" comment, is more friendly.Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added my details, although they're basically just copied from the list below the table on the project page.
Although it looks neat, it is not very editor-friendly. Any reason why the participants page cannot be 'merged' with the template? EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is, indeed, not user friendly to add your name to the table!
If we are agreed that a table is an appropriate way to proceed, I would be more than happy to wrap all this in templates that build it as a wikitable (rather than HTML tables) which would make it far easier. Mayalld (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Objection

Unresolved

I object to the recent formatting of the project page as a table. It's ugly, has accessibility issues, and tables are defined in HTML specifications as being for tabular data, not layout. Please remove it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm somewhat ambivalent about this but I do wish you'd have mentioned something when I asked above, and not left it until I spent time making the changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I do like the new table apart from one thing - that box with Parrot of Doom and FredBloggs in, an ego trip for someone? It needs to cover all members (sorry participants), not the one that made it. It would not take much effort to copy all the members (sorry participants) in the first column. Other columns could be filled in by participants, if they choose to do so.Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It presently only contains my name because, well, I'm the only one really qualified to comment on my own location and interests. I had hoped that other users would notice it and update it to include their own details, hopefully so it lists things in alphabetical order.
I really hope I've not upset anyone here, but I was keen to make this place a bit more welcoming (many of the other projects have much more inviting front pages) since right now theres very little activity here (witness the number of completed tasks that still remained, months later, on the front page). It would be but a moment of work to hit the revert button should consensus wish it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't revert it straight away was because you removed - in the same edit - completed article requests, and I didn't want to overwrite that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The only thing you mentioned above was putting tabular data into a table. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Andy: avoiding the use of tables for formatting, though usually beneficial, is not an absolute rule in either html or wikipedia; the reformatting seems to have been done using a mixture of <div> tags and just one <table>; and it's worth considering that Parrot Of Doom may have done what he did for a legitimate reason. And please, you could also express your objections more politely than just bluntly demanding the new formatting be removed.
Parrot of Doom - I like the new presentation and styling (it's not ugly at all in my eyes), but Andy has a point about the choice of html to use - could it be done entirely using styled divs instead of using that one table at all?
Regarding the list of participants - it seems that it is a delicate question, whether anybody except the user themselves gets to remove their name from a wikiproject's list of members. Perhaps it would be best to copy over the whole list of participants to the new table but to add some indication of when they last participated or something like that? Does anybody have experience of how other wikiprojects cope with members leaving without removing their registration? --VinceBowdren (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't answer your questions, I merely copied the formatting from another wikiproject and made the necessary text changes to suit this project. My knowledge of html and things is extremely limited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I can only speak for WP:THOMAS where the participant list has been revised a couple of times (although it is no more than a list of names). Currently we have it split in two: active and inactive participants, determined, approximately, by me. But even that is flawed, since one major contributor rarely edits the articles in scope, yet sporadic editing activity indicates that several pages are still on his watchlist. Live maintenance of such a list would be most tiresome.
EdJogg (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Vince, if you can show me "demanding", "bluntly" or otherwise, what you allege I do, I'll eat my hat. I did ask politely. Parrot of Doom may well have had good reasons - you have no reason to fail to assume good faith by implying that I failed to consider that - but the end result is as I describe. It may well look good in your eyes; but perhaps your eyes don't have difficulty in reading black text on a dark purple background. Others' do. AS for your straw man about HTML, I suggest you read both what I wrote, above, and the HTML specifications; for example: "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content...". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No reply. Are we going to fix this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridgwater and Taunton Canal nomination for GA status

Following suggestions from others, I am thinking of nominating this article for GA status. Any suggestions for improvements that might help that process gratefully received! Bob1960evens (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The article needs coordinates; at a minimum, one set to geo-locate the canal; at best, a list of features like that on Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. List of features added. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It passed. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see this or I would have helped. Well done on the pass - now you need to get it to FAC! :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing coordinates

Many canal articles are missing coordinates; You can find them using the Wikipedia:CatScan tool, using this CatScan search. Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data. These articles are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data. You can find out how to do this at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Please do so. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to add the coords for various things in Somerset but I'm having problems identifying the location of Galton's Canal "a 1 mile 3 furlong canal with one lock connected to the River Brue" which isn't on any mapping system I have - if anyone has further info that would be great. The only other Somerset article needing coordinates is Glastonbury Canal.— Rod talk 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Found it on OS Get A Map: Galton's Canal ST 446 436 - Also from [2] "Galton's Canal and Brown's Canal, Total length 2_ miles, Act of Parliament None, Completed and opened 1801. Two privately cut canals from the River Brue to the North Drain. No traffic records exist. Current state – incorporated into local drainage system." Derek Andrews (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference I quoted above does of course beg the question, where is Brown's canal?
About 1.25 miles downstream of Galton's canal. It appears in our "Canals that have been abandoned or are not navigable" section.Geni 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished mapping the Glastonbury Canal. --TimTay (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Galton's Canal now identified and mapped. Thanks to Derek Andrews for the grid reference. It matches what's on the old OS maps and the remains can still be seen today and clearly traced on Google. --TimTay (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

BW Newsroom

I just found and fixed some broken reference links on Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal. BW have at some time in the last year or so changed the url's of all their news stories, from something ending in a descriptive file name, to something ending in a numeric id. This means that any article referencing their newsroom may have broken links, depending on when it was added. Fortunately their search engine seems to be able to find these articles if you search for the words from the old url. So, please take a look at any articles you are working on. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sapperton Canal Tunnel coordinates

I've added coordinates for one portal of the Sapperton Canal Tunnel; can anyone provide them for the other, and the mid-point, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal

I have done some work on the Portal which seems to have been somewhat neglected. Most noticeably I started the News section, and also set up a mechanism for suggesting the Selected Photo, see here and the associated talk page. I could use some feedback on the mechanism I have proposed there, before rolling it out to the Selected Article and DYK sections, which should probably work in the same, or similar, manner. I am thinking that each of these sections could be updated monthly, any more and we might run out of good subject materials. DYK is going to have to need different criteria than the main wikipedia DYK, since it is unlikely we will ever have enough freshly created or expanded pages. I would suggest it is just taken from a list of interesting facts, with no requirement for newness, though of course, new items should take precedence. Please take a look and give some feedback. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't make use of the portals myself, so I cannot comment on frequency of use by non-editors, nor the lack of suggestions by project members. Portals do require a volunteer to grasp the nettle and perform the thankless task of maintaining them.
Even a relatively active project like WikiProject Trains has problems with picture/DYK suggestions. (See Portal talk:Trains) However, I strongly recommend a chat with Slambo (talk · contribs) who looks after the Trains Portal, as he should be able to guide you on DYK selection crtieria, etc.
EdJogg (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a constant supply of new stuff for the DYK section.
I'm going to try out a semi-randomised system for the DYK section that will (provided we get enough content) give us an ever changing selection from the DYK "pool"
As random numbers are tricky, I will be using slices from the {{#time:}} function.
DYK group 1 will rotate monthly, based on the month number, so we will need 12 facts.
DYK group 2 rotates weekly, based on the ISO week number - 53 facts needed.
DYK group 3 is a pretty random fact, based on the current seconds count - 60 facts needed.
Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The portal is now looking good, and I have removed the underconstruction category and listed it under transport portals. It does still need lots of items for the DYK section. Mayalld has done a great job automating this, and has set us a real challenge by adding a fourth group of 60 facts (see above), so there is plenty of space to add your favorite little snippets.

I am feeding the news section with items I get courtesy of Google News Alerts, but feel free to add your own contributions. We may need to make some decision about what is worthy as news in the future. We may also need to find a way to limit the number of items displayed. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is looking good, and Derek should be congratulated for picking this up and giving it a really good shove along the way to completion (and in the process reminding me that I had promised to help with things but hadn't delivered). The news section probably needs some more tweaking, and I'll look at that next week.
One thing that does need doing now is to add the portal link to the top of the See Also section of all relevant pages. This can be done by adding {{UKWP}} immediately under the section header. Mayalld (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thames lock-keepers' homes

Would the item in today's Guardian about Thames lock-keepers' homes not being sold off make a news item for the new portal? see "Sale of Thames lock-keepers' homes scrapped". The Guardian. 2008-12-04. p. 5. Retrieved 4 December 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help) I've visited the River Thames article & there is little on the locks which would make it appropriate there.— Rod talk 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways/Archive_3&oldid=945301171"