Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways and Talk:San Pedro Valley Railroad: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Objection: untilde
 
page needs clarification, current information
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject California}}
==Hello==
Hello, and welcome to this new project. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


{{TrainsWikiProject|class=start|Mapneeded=yes}}
==Coordinates + microformats==
*See [[/Coordinates + microformats]]


Page needs rework. Text now is a jumble of past and present. Needs more info on Arizona Railroad Group. [[User:Wlindley|Wlindley]] ([[User talk:Wlindley|talk]]) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
==Route maps==

*See [[/Waterways legend]]

: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? [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

==Archives==
*[[/Archive 1|April 2007 - September 2007]]
*[[/Archive 2|September 2007]]

== 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 [http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=EarthExternalData&Number=527646&Searchpage=1&Main=527646&Words=+ParrotofDoom&topic=&Search=true#Post527646] that post. Any Gearth fans here? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:google earth is not under a free license. Try http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ .[[User:Geni|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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|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. ([[User:SEWilco|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? [[User:Parrot of Doom|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. ([[User:SEWilco|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. [[User:Stuartsh|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. --[[User:Derek Andrews|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...
::[[User:EdJogg|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.--[[User:Derek Andrews|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]].--[[User:Derek Andrews|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]]--[[User:Derek Andrews|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.--[[User:Derek Andrews|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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Map added. I can take a hint! [[User:Bob1960evens|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. --[[User:Derek Andrews|Derek Andrews]] 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#New_or_Updated_Guidelines]]--[[User:Derek Andrews|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. [[User:Hmallett|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. [[User:Hmallett|Hmallett]] 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Good work. I have made a few changes and additions, most notably:
::::<blockquote>
::::'''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]].
</blockquote>

== 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. [[User:Hmallett|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 [[User:Mayalld/sandbox|Draft UKW importance scale]]. Thoughts? [[User:Mayalld|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. [[User:Hmallett|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? :) [[User:Oosoom|Oosoom]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red"><sup>[[User talk:Oosoom|Talk]]&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</sup></span> 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Very true. I've been [[WP:BOLD|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]]. [[User:Mayalld|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. [[User:Hmallett|Hmallett]] 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks! It does show that we have all been very conservative in ranking importance. [[User:Mayalld|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 [[User:Hmallett|Hmallett]] 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:This has now been dealt with. [[User:Hmallett|Hmallett]] 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

==This many be of interest==

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/Articles by size]] {{unsigned| Geni}}
18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:How did the various possibly unrelated settlements get in there? [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::There were either on the Cat or page the list was pulled from.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Inland waterway under restoration ==

I have just discovered the template {{tl|Inland waterway under restoration}} which puts a banner-warning in an article and adds to an appropriate category. This may be useful in articles on disused canals where there is much work to be done. I have reservations about its use more generally in articles on established canals which may need ''some'' restoration. It is a warning about speculative or changeable information, and could spoil the overall confidence in an article if over-used. To be used sparingly? [[User:Oosoom|Oosoom]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red"><sup>[[User talk:Oosoom|Talk]]&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</sup></span> 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::I suspect we will have a number of wikipedains involved in the Droitwich work so keeping up should not be a problem. Certianly we have had pics taken on two different WRG camps uploaded this year by different people.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Both photos on the Droitwich article are thirty years old:) It took six months for the news about the planning application to appear in the article. --[[User:Derek Andrews|Derek Andrews]] 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Do you think that a similar template should be created, but instead on a future canal or some waterway or related structure? For example [[Grand Union Canal#New branch]] [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::No because I don't think we have a serious issues with keeping up to date.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:13, 3 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. [[User:Bob1960evens|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).[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. I had not thought of that. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

== New River ==

This is just a small query. Would the [[New River (England)|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 [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::OK. I'll tag it. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

== Canals of Great Britain - map? ==

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

:Don't want to be criticised for being negative, but I can't see the existing map style being usable for this. Only one step on from one of the ELs on that page, I found [http://www.ukcanals.net/iwmap.pdf this map] (~2MB) which gives an indication of the scale of what you're proposing. A map, or maps, would be good though -- but might need to be regionalised sections.
:[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

::It's hard to see how such a map could be produced without breaching copyright. There seem to be only four possibilities:
::#Trace every Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old containing a canal (from 6 inch maps as one inch maps of that age do not show canals clearly)
::#Walk or navigate every canal and former canal with a GPS track recorder thereby making a map from a survey
::#Memorise and amalgamate several paper maps from different sources such that none could have been said to be individually copied (inaccurate).
::#Purchasing a copyright licence to display such a map commercially in Wikipedia.
::It seems a shame, but in the UK maps are not freely copyable. [[User:Oosoom|Oosoom]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red"><sup>[[User talk:Oosoom|Talk]]</sup></span> 08:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Doesn't copyright expire on OS maps older than 50 years? Could be wrong about that, but I'm sure I've seen an image or two on Wiki with just such a legend in the licence. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::they do but your problem would be finding a whole UK map that shows the canals then getting the thing through a scanner (they tend to be around a meter square in size things like [[:Image:Stroudwater Navigationmap1933.jpg]] are created by scanning a very small area).[[User:Geni|Geni]] 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, not a small task then. Oddly enough I did create a map overlay for the [[Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal|MBB]] canal, primarily for use in Google Earth. I took the imagery from old-maps.co.uk, it took me absolutely ages to do and I only did it to help trace the original route through the bits where it's buried! [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

:There's no law against using copyrighted maps as references. It should be perfectly legal to draw your own map using an existing one as reference. As long as you don't use a copyrighted map directly. [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<font color="#00BFFF">?</font>]]</sup> 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::That would be regarded as a derivative work. Technicaly you might have a point if you worked from the original raw data rather than the map but we don't have that.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 04:33, 18 August 2008 (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 - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note and have now done so. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Pencefn|Stewart]], it may help with a solution. It appears to put the secondary title in, but perhaps I'm wrong.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_rivers|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. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''[[User:Jza84|Jza84]] ·''' ([[User_talk:Jza84|talk]])</span> 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. [[User:Hmallett|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. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''[[User:Jza84|Jza84]] ·''' ([[User_talk:Jza84|talk]])</span> 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. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font> 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!)
:[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks!<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font> 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. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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).--[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk:Hymers2|talk]]) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:Converted into inline references - the article is expanding nicely. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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!
::[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk: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.....

[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:A portal is a window often found on the side of a ship. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:He he he, couldn't resist! :) Anyway, is there a worldwide waterways project? [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:Probably be a good idea. How about UK one for now and worldwide later? [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::And i am currently constructing it. See [[Portal:UK Waterways]]. Please help me improve it. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

==[[River Medway]]==
Article has greatly changed this week, could do with a reassessment. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Hmallett|Hmallett]] ([[User talk:Hmallett|talk]]) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::I would say it depends on how much the mills objected to navigation of the river.[[User:Geni|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]].&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod]] <sup>[[User talk:Rodw|talk]]</sup> 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== Liverpool Canal Link ==
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? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Portal ==

Could i just request someone help me construct [[Portal:UK Waterways]]? [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Richard Harvey|Richard Harvey]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I've reworded the HNC version to make it clear that;
:::#It is the only instance on a ''navigable'' canal
:::#There are other potential cases on derelict canals
:::#All result from pylons being installed after abandonment.
:::[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


==[[Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10]]==

Happening this sunday.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:50, 6 June 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]]. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Hymers2|Hymers2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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 :) [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

::I've nominated this for fac. Gulp. [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal|comments here]]. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I have a copy yes.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

::Another request - anyone got a copy of [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b0KEHwAACAAJ 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! [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

==Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme==

As you [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches|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 [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment|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 [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria|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 [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria|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. [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index|The bot]] is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please [[Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#WikiProject_responses|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 [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|1.0 Editorial Team]], <font color="green">[[User:ShepBot|'''§hepBot''']]</font>'''&nbsp;<small>(<font color="red">[[User talk:ShepBot|Disable]]</font>)'''</small> 21:29, 4 July 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? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick [[Template:Infobox_Canal|play around]] but frankly I have no idea what I'm doing. Its all a bit complicated for me :) [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Geni|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? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::We should probably move towards using collapsible maps (see [[Peak Forest Canal]] for an example) [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Geni|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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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) [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Do we need an extra parameter, and if so, how many? I just do <nowiki>Canal A<br>Canal B<br>Canal C</nowiki> [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 05:54, 15 August 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. :) [[User:Oosoom|Oosoom]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red"><sup>[[User talk:Oosoom|Talk]]</sup></span> 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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata|talk]]) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
: Yes, as a member of the WP you could add one.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk:Pyrotec|talk]]) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks, [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata|talk]]) 19:46, 8 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Phlegm_Rooster&oldid=230854280 this] sort of attitude to content. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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!!
:[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</font></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Feel free to put it into a subpage of my user space. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</font></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</font></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
===Done===
Article copyedited, with ELs turned into proper references, and back in mainspace. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</font></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</font></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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 {{tl|main}} [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk: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 ! [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DollyD&diff=next&oldid=232161447 here] [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
===Kept===
The AfD has been closed as '''Keep''', so the article stays. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<font color="#00BFFF">?</font>]]</sup> 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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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}.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<font color="#00BFFF">?</font>]]</sup> 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?[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata|talk]]) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Must be time to AfD [[Pontcysyllte]] as "non-notable" then 8-) [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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;
:#Create new article as a user sub page, and ask for assistance before they go into mainspace.
:#Go into "my preferences", select the "Gadgets" tab and add the "reftools" gadget, which will make adding citations easier.
:[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 07:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

==...and the Derby and Sandiacre Canal Trust==
Same [[Derby and Sandiacre Canal Trust|here]]. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you guys for all your help and patience. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata|talk]]) 04:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Wikiproject Thames ==

You may wish to establish a dialogue with the people at the new [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Thames]]....[[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk: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 [[Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal|MBB]] can be seen from 5.53 onwards. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 22:46, 26 August 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]]? [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 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.[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk:VinceBowdren|talk]]) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

: And [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime]] --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:Fasach Nua|Fasach Nua]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#Republic of Ireland vs Ireland|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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Crispness|Crispness]] ([[User talk:Crispness|talk]]) 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Picking up on [[User:Mayalld|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. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: I don't have a strong view either way; but what is "Foo"? [[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 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. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:I think Matt is jumping the gun somewhat. [[WP:BRIT|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. [[User:Crispness|Crispness]] ([[User talk: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" [[WP:BRIT|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]].--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 23:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:Exactly! [[User:Crispness|Crispness]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Setanta747|Setanta747]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk: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 (Northern Ireland)|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. --[[User:Setanta747|Setanta747]] ([[User talk:Setanta747|talk]]) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== Userbox ==

Can someone create a user box for participants' profiles? [[User:Grunners|Grunners]] ([[User talk:Grunners|talk]]) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Already exists {{tl|user UKW}} [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld]] ([[User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::Cheers =) [[User:Grunners|Grunners]] ([[User talk:Grunners|talk]]) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for UK Waterways ==

[[Wikipedia:Release Version|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 [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/ automated selection of articles for Version 0.7].

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/UK_Waterways.s0.html 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 [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi 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 [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting|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 [[User:SelectionBot/0.7/U-1|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, [[User:SelectionBot|SelectionBot]] 23:27, 15 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 [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal|on this page]]. Unless I'm mistaken this would be the first article about a canal to reach FAC if it passes. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:It passed :) [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::Congratulations - that's a lot of your hard work paid off. --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk:VinceBowdren|talk]]) 23:28, 30 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". [[User:Renata|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata|talk]]) 19:21, 27 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.

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 13:47, 30 September 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 [[User:Parrot of Doom/sandbox|this table on my sandbox]]? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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...
:[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Objection ===
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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::The only thing you mentioned above was putting tabular data into a table. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|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 &lt;div&gt; tags and just one &lt;table&gt;; 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 [[WP:POLITE|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? --[[User:VinceBowdren|VinceBowdren]] ([[User talk:VinceBowdren|talk]]) 00:42, 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.
::[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Coordinates for linear features ==

I have started [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear|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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:31, 10 October 2008

WikiProject iconCalifornia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTrains Start‑class
WikiProject icon
 Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Page needs rework. Text now is a jumble of past and present. Needs more info on Arizona Railroad Group. Wlindley (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways&oldid=244386842"