This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This section says that labour wages of 4.5d for a 10 hr day then, are equivalent to 70 pounds a day in 2008 values. http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/result.php and various other sites give value for 5d then as about 4 to 9 GB pounds today. Maybe 7 pounds, not 70, was intended? Tiddy ( talk) 05:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Was Sir John Aird associated with the Ship Canal as a shareholder or member of the board of directors? The association in the article seems to arise from a text dump (I found the same text in a piece in the Bucks Free Press) about a house in Beaconsfield. Aird was a Victoria, London-based contractor and, while his firm would undoubtedly have had the capacity to work on the Ship Canal, my research suggests most of the work was undertaken by contractor Thomas Walker. However, Walker died before the project finished, and it is possible that Aird's firm may have stepped in to complete the scheme. Can anyone confirm whether Aird's firm was involved, and if Aird himself joined the Ship Canal Company's board of directors? Paul W 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A bit of progress, but still not sure if he was a board member. I now believe Aird's firm completed the Ship Canal after Walker died. Paul W 13:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Question: My mother was born in Ellesmere Port in 1917 and remembers a hill called Manistey's Mount that was reputedly made of the spoil from digging out the canal. Does anyone know if this is true? If so then why 'Manistey's'? (I may have the spelling wrong).
See http://www.canalarchive.org.uk/Tpages/html/T1572.html. This says Mount Manisty (note spelling) was "a mound of earth created from extracted soil from the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal. Its name came from the contractor's agent on the Eastham section, Mr Manisty, who was well liked by the navvies due to the entertainments he and his wife provided for the workers." Paul W 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
THE BIG SHIP SAILS ON THE ALLEY-ALLEY-OH
The big ship sails on the alley-alley-oh, the alley-alley-oh, the alley-alley-oh, Oh, the big ship sails on the alley-alley-oh, on the last day of September.
The captain said it will never, never do, never, never do, never, never do, The captain said it will never, never do, on the last day of September.
The big ship sank to the bottom of the sea, the bottom of the sea, the bottom of the sea, The big ship sank to the bottom of the sea, on the last day of September.
We all dip our heads in the deep blue sea, the deep blue sea, the deep blue sea, We all dip our heads in the deep blue sea, on the last day of September
I can remember this as a child. My dad was a fireman on the Ship Canal railway. I think the song has many versions through out the UK. Ozdaren 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Having been born in Warrington, as was my father (Warrington is roughly in the middle of the Ship Canal) and with one set of grandparents from Warrington and the other from Merseyside (one end of the canal), then having moved to Manchester (the other end of the canal), I was surprised at the 'Big Ditch' term. I'd never heard it until I saw it here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.98.3 ( talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The recent triple-reversion has removed not only coordinates, but links to named features and the distances between them. There is no consensus for this removal, and there have been no other objections to t their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You have yet again ignored the parts of my reply which you do not like. I say again - I fail to see how your link shows concensus to keep. Please explain for me where the concensus is. L.J.Skinner wot| I did 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Pages marked with {{ coord}}, such as this one, can be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:
The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map
Unfortunately, my addition of these links to the article have been reverted, twice, each time with a spurious reason in the edit summery (the first referred to a single, disputed comment by the reverter, on WP:VPT; the other to a currently impossible scenario). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a list of table of over 15 items long? Can these not go into prose? It also seems unnecessary to link each one to a coordinate, perhaps a map would be better? L.J.Skinner wot| I did 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, any chance someone can fix the table at the top? It's pushing the text down and looks untidy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.22.62 ( talk) 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Near the Thelwall Viaduct M6, theres a huge ruddy great hill that pokes out of the ground. Is this a natural feature, or removed earth from the canal excavation? Here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.396944,-2.485442&spn=0.019217,0.057335&t=h&z=15&om=1 - its not too clear there, but the area between the A57 and the canal is a big hill Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently a boat taxi service is to be installed along with a few hundred metres of canal, near the Trafford Centre outside Manchester. Anyone know anything about this to add to the article? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to offer a link to the reader that informs them of what things like 'wind' and 'water' are? Methinks there are far too many hyperlinks in this article, they detract from the more important terminology of shipping and canals. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone give a proper citation for the "Owen" book we cite in this article? -- Doradus ( talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As a means of cheaply transporting goods to Manchester cheaply the canal was an expensive white elephant. All Manchester had to do was have docks docks at Eastham and railways to take goods to a railways(s) terminal in Manchester, which was far more flexible and a fraction of the price.
The canal was perceived as an attempt to make the city an important city as large ports usually are.
The full canal only lasted 85 years, with Manchester Docks closing completely, which is a rather short time for such an expensive undertaking.
With regard to this diff, before this gets sillier I'd like to put forth the notion that asking for a citation/proof with regard to text that appears to be already cited is somewhat silly.
If the anonymous IP users who have been making these edits would like to offer their own sources, perhaps the matter will be resolved; but until they do so, my personal opinion is that the line as I have reverted it should stand. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That was 5 minutes of googling. I'm sure if I were more thorough I could present a stronger case for the present version of this article. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I offer this, from W H Chaloner, "The birth of modern Manchester", in Carter, Charles Frederick, ed. (1962). Manchester and its region : a survey prepared for the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held in Manchester August 29 to September 5 1962. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 143..
"... Manchester's existence as one of the economic capitals of the world depended primnarily on the cheap transport of cotton and cotton goods in and out of South-East Lancashire. As the 'Great Depression' deepened the neccesity to cheapen transport costs became ever more urgent. Liverpool men dominated the Mersey, and Liverpool interests levied what Manchester men considered to be excessive charges in organizing the import trade in raw cotton. In addition, the railway companies serving the Lancashire cotton towns seem to have take advantage of their quasi-monoplistic posistion to charge high rates on goods traffic, particularly as they controlled the old canal system. The answer to this was ..."
From that, it would appear to be an argument on the exact meaning of "port costs".
Mr Stephen (
talk)
14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The links given were poor and no more than said Liverpool port cost were high, with no substantiation. The misinformation must be removed. I could knock-up a web site with misinformation and link to it and it appears people would believe that. The writer must substantiate claims - it has not been done. It must be removed.
argument on the exact meaning of "port costs". Exactly it appears Manchester was the only one griping. Blackburn, Burnley, Birmingham, etc never griped. Ports costs were not the problem. Two porst were on the Mersey competing. The problem was rail costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.48.15 ( talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Websites vary in giving the dimensions of the canal. Is there an authoritative source that should be quoted? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this recent addition to here from the lead because it seems to me to be the flmsiest of speculation:
It is reputed to be the origin of the nursery rhyme song The Big Ship Sails On The Ally Ally-Oh. [1]
Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Subject: RE: Lyr Req: The Big Ship Sails ^^
Actually though there was a song about about the canal written some years before it was constructed see here. It would be interesting to know when that first appeared. I doubt if it was seventy years before as suggested in the book. Richerman ( talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Bridgewater Canal has a nice infobox- and is a GA.-- ClemRutter ( talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some nice images here (click on 'go' when you get there), particularly the two engravings from the London Illustrated News. As usual, the museum is claiming copyright on them but those two are certainly well out of copyright as they were published in 1894 (although the one of the docks says 1883 which is impossible) - should we use them?
I have put some new images on commons commons:Category:Pomona Docksand geotagged others, more to come on Salford Quays. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you guys are the experts at getting an article to FAC- I am hanging around to learn the techniques but can I float a couple of ideas.
Looking for a structure comparison Panama Canal made it to FA then lost it on references. It uses this as a structure:
* 1 History o 1.1 Early proposals o 1.2 French construction attempt o 1.3 U.S. construction o 1.4 Later developments * 2 Layout * 3 Lock size * 4 Tolls * 5 Current issues o 5.1 Efficiency and maintenance o 5.2 Capacity o 5.3 Competition o 5.4 Water issues * 6 The future o 6.1 Third set of locks project o 6.2 Building the new canal * 7 Canal Pilots * 8 Gatun and Gatun Lake Supplementary Benefits * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
..which suggests we could- take this
* 1 Early history * 2 Financing * 3 Construction * 4 Route o 4.1 Features * 5 Operational history * 6 MSC Railway * 7 Today * 8 Maximum size of ships * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
and change it to
* 1 history * 1.1 Early history * 1.2 Financing * 1.3 Construction * 1.4 ex 5 Operational history * Tonnage Table * 2 Route Geography of area The Locks The Docks and wharfs Other Features on the banks* 6 MSC Railway* 3 Today * 4 Locks and Maximum size of ships * 5 Current issues Culture and media * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
Some of the existing material will need to be redistributed Just a few ideas-please savage- or amend. I am here to learn -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about the scale of this section; it seems to contain more about the Park than it does the canal. Certainly there was some kind of symbiotic relationship between the two, but right now that section seems to be suggesting that had the canal not existed, Trafford Park would never have developed quite so much as it did. Parrot of Doom 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There looks to be a vast difference of opinion on tonnages in 1974- it is not in the table but my source states it was 17,369,123 tonnes. However the paragraph above refers to dry goods, so possible needs to be reworded of some further analysis made, I just mention it here so I don't frighten the horses. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a good article so I don't expect to have to say much in respect of "problems".
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a few minor "problems" that need fixing and some suggestions that are not mandatory for awarding GA-status. I'm therefore going to add my final comments, below, but leave the "pass/fail" as unmarked for now. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An informative, entirely readable, well referenced and well illustrated article on the history of the Manchester Ship Canal.
Congratulations on anither fine article and a GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says November 1882, but Harford's book (page 26) says [lodged in Parliament] 22 December 1882. Which is correct? Parrot of Doom 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says there were three. Liverpool to Manchester Lines names four. Which is correct? -- John ( talk) 05:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Between Financing and construction. -- John ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a few search results in the Times archive that suggest the Ship Canal Company planned to close the canal's upper reaches completely, although this may have been political manoeuvring on their part. I hesitate to add such reports without a more general overview, lest I be accused of OR. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"it was often cheaper to import goods from Hull than it was from Liverpool." Does this need the relative distances from Hull and Liverpool to Manchester and the fact that they are on opposite coasts of Britain to make it clear to those unfamiliar with the geography how untenable that situation was? Richerman ( talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Peel's ownership of the canal, which the article claims became true in 2007, needs further investigation. In 1992 Peel acquired 68% of "Manchester Ship" (I presume this is the ship canal company). In 1993 it owned 82% of the canal, and this article claims it bought the Ship Canal Company the following year (guess who owned the land the Trafford Centre is on). This article claims that Whittaker fought for ten years to get control of the Ship Canal Company. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the term "navigation" as in: "The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England" seems to be missing something, eg a word such as "facility" (or other suitable noun) following the word "navigation". I notice that this construct occurs in other similar articles, but can find no support for it in various usage references. Can anyone throw some definitive light on the subject? Downsize43 ( talk) 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we have re-acquired a long table of distances. My feeling is that this is overkill. Could it at least be made collapsible? -- John ( talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to keep the table, does anyone have an objection to replacing the collapsed box, which leaves all of the whitespace with the following? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
How about merging some or all of the information into the schematic map which is at {{ Manchester Ship Canal map}}? For example, the distances along the canal might be put in parentheses after the place names. Warden ( talk) 14:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So here's my ultimate problem with collapsing the table, as we are doing now. It leaves that awful white space, especially with that image of the locomotive. Moving the image to the left would cause the text to be squeezed between both sides and would still result in some whitespace. We could uncollapse the table or remove it entirely and this issue is solved. My solution above also allows the text to flow naturally. In addition, to the extent of my knowledge, {{ Collapse top}} is not used in article pages. {{ Hidden}} is used in other featured articles (see The Raven). I'd accept virtually any solution other than what is currently in place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So now it is included, but unsourced? On a Featured Article that won't do. We were discussing it as a matter of reaching consensus on whether it helped the article or not, when we thought it was sourced. I am terribly loath to slap a {{cn}} tag on this, so I will remove it instead. Please do not replace it unless it is sourced to a reliable source and we have a consensus that it adds to the article. -- John ( talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2c points to 1c which points to Wikipedia:When to cite, which starts off "The list of featured-article criteria calls for inline citations where appropriate. The English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Editors are also advised to add in-text attribution whenever a source's words are copied or closely paraphrased.". I don't think coordinates are likely to be challenged. I don't actually think that the mileage table is likely to be challenged. The mileage columns themselves are, per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources", namely any of the maps we link to - such as an OS map - which provides a scale enabling a user to check the distances.
So for me, removal of the table on the grounds of sourcing is as bogus as the "On a Featured Article that won't do" line being taken by John. Neither do I see consensus for the hasty and high-handed removal of the table. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the above section, why isn't the table back in this article yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(my first ever post to Wikipedia)
Among the largest ships in the canal were three tankers of Dutch Shell Tankers: Cinulia, Crania and another one. MV Crania is beautifully portrayed by Dr. Allan Ryszka-Onions. These were built to just fit in the locks, and they had a cabin for the inland pilot, who would be on board for days. The ships would go empty to the refinery at Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles), then return with some grade of heavy oil for lubricants, and discharge at Ellesmere Port, Barton and places in between. They might divert from their loop to Rotterdam (Netherlands) or elsewhere. I was an apprentice ship engineer on MV Crania in the summer of 1976. I must still have a photograph of her just past a railway bridge (the second one on the way in, as I remember it). This third ship had already been sold, and I remember being told that an offshore discharging buoy (or whatever facility) was to replace the canal trip.
---
Chris Laarman (Amsterdam, NL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLaarman ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it fair to describe the ship canal as a river navigation (i.e. a river made navigable)? This map shows that only on part of its route is it actually the river. For some of the route it is alongside the estuary, for some of the route it is a noticeable distance from the river. Surely a better description would be "canal".
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Of the Stolt Kittiwake heading down the canal. But am I the only one who thinks the article could do with another shot of a larger vessel on the canal? There awesome shots! -- Τασουλα ( talk) 19:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd removed the recent addition of the Inflation template for a capital sum on this page. The Template:Inflation page notes that "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." Essentially the CPI isn't designed for capital project comparison, because the measure doesn't include the cost of big projects like (e.g.) canals. Malleus, I can see you've reverted again, noting "don't talk wet", but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this (other than I guess you disagree). Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This section says that labour wages of 4.5d for a 10 hr day then, are equivalent to 70 pounds a day in 2008 values. http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/result.php and various other sites give value for 5d then as about 4 to 9 GB pounds today. Maybe 7 pounds, not 70, was intended? Tiddy ( talk) 05:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Was Sir John Aird associated with the Ship Canal as a shareholder or member of the board of directors? The association in the article seems to arise from a text dump (I found the same text in a piece in the Bucks Free Press) about a house in Beaconsfield. Aird was a Victoria, London-based contractor and, while his firm would undoubtedly have had the capacity to work on the Ship Canal, my research suggests most of the work was undertaken by contractor Thomas Walker. However, Walker died before the project finished, and it is possible that Aird's firm may have stepped in to complete the scheme. Can anyone confirm whether Aird's firm was involved, and if Aird himself joined the Ship Canal Company's board of directors? Paul W 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A bit of progress, but still not sure if he was a board member. I now believe Aird's firm completed the Ship Canal after Walker died. Paul W 13:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Question: My mother was born in Ellesmere Port in 1917 and remembers a hill called Manistey's Mount that was reputedly made of the spoil from digging out the canal. Does anyone know if this is true? If so then why 'Manistey's'? (I may have the spelling wrong).
See http://www.canalarchive.org.uk/Tpages/html/T1572.html. This says Mount Manisty (note spelling) was "a mound of earth created from extracted soil from the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal. Its name came from the contractor's agent on the Eastham section, Mr Manisty, who was well liked by the navvies due to the entertainments he and his wife provided for the workers." Paul W 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
THE BIG SHIP SAILS ON THE ALLEY-ALLEY-OH
The big ship sails on the alley-alley-oh, the alley-alley-oh, the alley-alley-oh, Oh, the big ship sails on the alley-alley-oh, on the last day of September.
The captain said it will never, never do, never, never do, never, never do, The captain said it will never, never do, on the last day of September.
The big ship sank to the bottom of the sea, the bottom of the sea, the bottom of the sea, The big ship sank to the bottom of the sea, on the last day of September.
We all dip our heads in the deep blue sea, the deep blue sea, the deep blue sea, We all dip our heads in the deep blue sea, on the last day of September
I can remember this as a child. My dad was a fireman on the Ship Canal railway. I think the song has many versions through out the UK. Ozdaren 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Having been born in Warrington, as was my father (Warrington is roughly in the middle of the Ship Canal) and with one set of grandparents from Warrington and the other from Merseyside (one end of the canal), then having moved to Manchester (the other end of the canal), I was surprised at the 'Big Ditch' term. I'd never heard it until I saw it here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.98.3 ( talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The recent triple-reversion has removed not only coordinates, but links to named features and the distances between them. There is no consensus for this removal, and there have been no other objections to t their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You have yet again ignored the parts of my reply which you do not like. I say again - I fail to see how your link shows concensus to keep. Please explain for me where the concensus is. L.J.Skinner wot| I did 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Pages marked with {{ coord}}, such as this one, can be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:
The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map
Unfortunately, my addition of these links to the article have been reverted, twice, each time with a spurious reason in the edit summery (the first referred to a single, disputed comment by the reverter, on WP:VPT; the other to a currently impossible scenario). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a list of table of over 15 items long? Can these not go into prose? It also seems unnecessary to link each one to a coordinate, perhaps a map would be better? L.J.Skinner wot| I did 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, any chance someone can fix the table at the top? It's pushing the text down and looks untidy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.22.62 ( talk) 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Near the Thelwall Viaduct M6, theres a huge ruddy great hill that pokes out of the ground. Is this a natural feature, or removed earth from the canal excavation? Here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.396944,-2.485442&spn=0.019217,0.057335&t=h&z=15&om=1 - its not too clear there, but the area between the A57 and the canal is a big hill Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently a boat taxi service is to be installed along with a few hundred metres of canal, near the Trafford Centre outside Manchester. Anyone know anything about this to add to the article? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to offer a link to the reader that informs them of what things like 'wind' and 'water' are? Methinks there are far too many hyperlinks in this article, they detract from the more important terminology of shipping and canals. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone give a proper citation for the "Owen" book we cite in this article? -- Doradus ( talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As a means of cheaply transporting goods to Manchester cheaply the canal was an expensive white elephant. All Manchester had to do was have docks docks at Eastham and railways to take goods to a railways(s) terminal in Manchester, which was far more flexible and a fraction of the price.
The canal was perceived as an attempt to make the city an important city as large ports usually are.
The full canal only lasted 85 years, with Manchester Docks closing completely, which is a rather short time for such an expensive undertaking.
With regard to this diff, before this gets sillier I'd like to put forth the notion that asking for a citation/proof with regard to text that appears to be already cited is somewhat silly.
If the anonymous IP users who have been making these edits would like to offer their own sources, perhaps the matter will be resolved; but until they do so, my personal opinion is that the line as I have reverted it should stand. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That was 5 minutes of googling. I'm sure if I were more thorough I could present a stronger case for the present version of this article. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I offer this, from W H Chaloner, "The birth of modern Manchester", in Carter, Charles Frederick, ed. (1962). Manchester and its region : a survey prepared for the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held in Manchester August 29 to September 5 1962. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 143..
"... Manchester's existence as one of the economic capitals of the world depended primnarily on the cheap transport of cotton and cotton goods in and out of South-East Lancashire. As the 'Great Depression' deepened the neccesity to cheapen transport costs became ever more urgent. Liverpool men dominated the Mersey, and Liverpool interests levied what Manchester men considered to be excessive charges in organizing the import trade in raw cotton. In addition, the railway companies serving the Lancashire cotton towns seem to have take advantage of their quasi-monoplistic posistion to charge high rates on goods traffic, particularly as they controlled the old canal system. The answer to this was ..."
From that, it would appear to be an argument on the exact meaning of "port costs".
Mr Stephen (
talk)
14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The links given were poor and no more than said Liverpool port cost were high, with no substantiation. The misinformation must be removed. I could knock-up a web site with misinformation and link to it and it appears people would believe that. The writer must substantiate claims - it has not been done. It must be removed.
argument on the exact meaning of "port costs". Exactly it appears Manchester was the only one griping. Blackburn, Burnley, Birmingham, etc never griped. Ports costs were not the problem. Two porst were on the Mersey competing. The problem was rail costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.48.15 ( talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Websites vary in giving the dimensions of the canal. Is there an authoritative source that should be quoted? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this recent addition to here from the lead because it seems to me to be the flmsiest of speculation:
It is reputed to be the origin of the nursery rhyme song The Big Ship Sails On The Ally Ally-Oh. [1]
Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Subject: RE: Lyr Req: The Big Ship Sails ^^
Actually though there was a song about about the canal written some years before it was constructed see here. It would be interesting to know when that first appeared. I doubt if it was seventy years before as suggested in the book. Richerman ( talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Bridgewater Canal has a nice infobox- and is a GA.-- ClemRutter ( talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some nice images here (click on 'go' when you get there), particularly the two engravings from the London Illustrated News. As usual, the museum is claiming copyright on them but those two are certainly well out of copyright as they were published in 1894 (although the one of the docks says 1883 which is impossible) - should we use them?
I have put some new images on commons commons:Category:Pomona Docksand geotagged others, more to come on Salford Quays. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you guys are the experts at getting an article to FAC- I am hanging around to learn the techniques but can I float a couple of ideas.
Looking for a structure comparison Panama Canal made it to FA then lost it on references. It uses this as a structure:
* 1 History o 1.1 Early proposals o 1.2 French construction attempt o 1.3 U.S. construction o 1.4 Later developments * 2 Layout * 3 Lock size * 4 Tolls * 5 Current issues o 5.1 Efficiency and maintenance o 5.2 Capacity o 5.3 Competition o 5.4 Water issues * 6 The future o 6.1 Third set of locks project o 6.2 Building the new canal * 7 Canal Pilots * 8 Gatun and Gatun Lake Supplementary Benefits * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
..which suggests we could- take this
* 1 Early history * 2 Financing * 3 Construction * 4 Route o 4.1 Features * 5 Operational history * 6 MSC Railway * 7 Today * 8 Maximum size of ships * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
and change it to
* 1 history * 1.1 Early history * 1.2 Financing * 1.3 Construction * 1.4 ex 5 Operational history * Tonnage Table * 2 Route Geography of area The Locks The Docks and wharfs Other Features on the banks* 6 MSC Railway* 3 Today * 4 Locks and Maximum size of ships * 5 Current issues Culture and media * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Further reading * 12 External links
Some of the existing material will need to be redistributed Just a few ideas-please savage- or amend. I am here to learn -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about the scale of this section; it seems to contain more about the Park than it does the canal. Certainly there was some kind of symbiotic relationship between the two, but right now that section seems to be suggesting that had the canal not existed, Trafford Park would never have developed quite so much as it did. Parrot of Doom 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There looks to be a vast difference of opinion on tonnages in 1974- it is not in the table but my source states it was 17,369,123 tonnes. However the paragraph above refers to dry goods, so possible needs to be reworded of some further analysis made, I just mention it here so I don't frighten the horses. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a good article so I don't expect to have to say much in respect of "problems".
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a few minor "problems" that need fixing and some suggestions that are not mandatory for awarding GA-status. I'm therefore going to add my final comments, below, but leave the "pass/fail" as unmarked for now. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An informative, entirely readable, well referenced and well illustrated article on the history of the Manchester Ship Canal.
Congratulations on anither fine article and a GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says November 1882, but Harford's book (page 26) says [lodged in Parliament] 22 December 1882. Which is correct? Parrot of Doom 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says there were three. Liverpool to Manchester Lines names four. Which is correct? -- John ( talk) 05:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Between Financing and construction. -- John ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a few search results in the Times archive that suggest the Ship Canal Company planned to close the canal's upper reaches completely, although this may have been political manoeuvring on their part. I hesitate to add such reports without a more general overview, lest I be accused of OR. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"it was often cheaper to import goods from Hull than it was from Liverpool." Does this need the relative distances from Hull and Liverpool to Manchester and the fact that they are on opposite coasts of Britain to make it clear to those unfamiliar with the geography how untenable that situation was? Richerman ( talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Peel's ownership of the canal, which the article claims became true in 2007, needs further investigation. In 1992 Peel acquired 68% of "Manchester Ship" (I presume this is the ship canal company). In 1993 it owned 82% of the canal, and this article claims it bought the Ship Canal Company the following year (guess who owned the land the Trafford Centre is on). This article claims that Whittaker fought for ten years to get control of the Ship Canal Company. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the term "navigation" as in: "The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England" seems to be missing something, eg a word such as "facility" (or other suitable noun) following the word "navigation". I notice that this construct occurs in other similar articles, but can find no support for it in various usage references. Can anyone throw some definitive light on the subject? Downsize43 ( talk) 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we have re-acquired a long table of distances. My feeling is that this is overkill. Could it at least be made collapsible? -- John ( talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to keep the table, does anyone have an objection to replacing the collapsed box, which leaves all of the whitespace with the following? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
How about merging some or all of the information into the schematic map which is at {{ Manchester Ship Canal map}}? For example, the distances along the canal might be put in parentheses after the place names. Warden ( talk) 14:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So here's my ultimate problem with collapsing the table, as we are doing now. It leaves that awful white space, especially with that image of the locomotive. Moving the image to the left would cause the text to be squeezed between both sides and would still result in some whitespace. We could uncollapse the table or remove it entirely and this issue is solved. My solution above also allows the text to flow naturally. In addition, to the extent of my knowledge, {{ Collapse top}} is not used in article pages. {{ Hidden}} is used in other featured articles (see The Raven). I'd accept virtually any solution other than what is currently in place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So now it is included, but unsourced? On a Featured Article that won't do. We were discussing it as a matter of reaching consensus on whether it helped the article or not, when we thought it was sourced. I am terribly loath to slap a {{cn}} tag on this, so I will remove it instead. Please do not replace it unless it is sourced to a reliable source and we have a consensus that it adds to the article. -- John ( talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2c points to 1c which points to Wikipedia:When to cite, which starts off "The list of featured-article criteria calls for inline citations where appropriate. The English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Editors are also advised to add in-text attribution whenever a source's words are copied or closely paraphrased.". I don't think coordinates are likely to be challenged. I don't actually think that the mileage table is likely to be challenged. The mileage columns themselves are, per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources", namely any of the maps we link to - such as an OS map - which provides a scale enabling a user to check the distances.
So for me, removal of the table on the grounds of sourcing is as bogus as the "On a Featured Article that won't do" line being taken by John. Neither do I see consensus for the hasty and high-handed removal of the table. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the above section, why isn't the table back in this article yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(my first ever post to Wikipedia)
Among the largest ships in the canal were three tankers of Dutch Shell Tankers: Cinulia, Crania and another one. MV Crania is beautifully portrayed by Dr. Allan Ryszka-Onions. These were built to just fit in the locks, and they had a cabin for the inland pilot, who would be on board for days. The ships would go empty to the refinery at Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles), then return with some grade of heavy oil for lubricants, and discharge at Ellesmere Port, Barton and places in between. They might divert from their loop to Rotterdam (Netherlands) or elsewhere. I was an apprentice ship engineer on MV Crania in the summer of 1976. I must still have a photograph of her just past a railway bridge (the second one on the way in, as I remember it). This third ship had already been sold, and I remember being told that an offshore discharging buoy (or whatever facility) was to replace the canal trip.
---
Chris Laarman (Amsterdam, NL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLaarman ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it fair to describe the ship canal as a river navigation (i.e. a river made navigable)? This map shows that only on part of its route is it actually the river. For some of the route it is alongside the estuary, for some of the route it is a noticeable distance from the river. Surely a better description would be "canal".
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Of the Stolt Kittiwake heading down the canal. But am I the only one who thinks the article could do with another shot of a larger vessel on the canal? There awesome shots! -- Τασουλα ( talk) 19:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd removed the recent addition of the Inflation template for a capital sum on this page. The Template:Inflation page notes that "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." Essentially the CPI isn't designed for capital project comparison, because the measure doesn't include the cost of big projects like (e.g.) canals. Malleus, I can see you've reverted again, noting "don't talk wet", but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this (other than I guess you disagree). Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)