![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Copied from Template talk:Convert#Feet and Inches or Feet and a decimal
For an subject whose roots are in the 18th or 19th century and using definitions based in imperial units, would it not make more sense to use imperial first and add the metric in parenthesis? {{convert|7|ft|1|in|m}} => 7 feet 1 inch (2.16 m) looks better IMHO. I know we are all being forced into SI these days, but this is a historic topic, not 21st C research! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit on 11 April 2020 that added a history section, however user:Arrivisto you provided no sources for any on the information you added. As the rest of the article is fully cited, I am CHALLENGING you to provide citations in the near future for the text you added, because I will remove any text that is not supported by citations. Also as the rest of the article is in metric measurements with imperial measurements in brackets, please follow that style (see WP:UNIT); and it is "14 ft" not 14' ( WP:UNITSYMBOLS § Specific units). -- PBS ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ask any UK canal boater "What is the longest a narrowboat may be" and you will invariablyget the answer "72 feer". Ask again what the optimum length is to navigate the majority of canals, and you will get the answer "57 (or 58) feet". Ask why a widebeam may not negotiate narrow canals, and you will get the answer, "Because only a a 6'10" narrowboat may fit into a narrow lock". QED! I am not a luddite, and I would very much like the UK to adopt full metrication;but in ssme things (pints of beer, people's height and weights, boat lengths), people persist in thinking in imperial terms. If one must have metric equivalents on this page, I suppose that's fine; but put feet first, and metres in brackets afterwards. Arrivisto ( talk) 10:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The citation style of this article is
WP:CITESHORT using {{
sfn}}
and {{
harvnb}}
etc where appropriate.
@ user:Arrivisto I have left some of the citations you have provided as long inline citations along with the text that they support, pleas provide full citations where I have added "[full citation needed]". One this is done if you are uncomfortable with citation templates I will convert them (full citations include author, year, title [edition], location, publisher, ISBN if it exits and the page range see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books).
I have also marked two citations with "[unreliable source?]". Here are copies for further discussion:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)They were added to support the sentence:
-- PBS ( talk) 16:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states "a further restriction is that, if a cruising widebeam is to negotiate bridges and tunnels, its air draft must allow adequate clearance."
Most narrowboat sides slope slightly inwards from gunwale. I presume this is so the top edge of the roof does not hit the arch of a bridge (because if the bridge had straight sides (like a lock) there would be no need for this feature).
I can see that in certain circumstances that an arch might be a problem, forcing widebeams to have a lower roof (than a narrowboat), but given that the bridges and tunnels on a navigation were designed to take boats of the same width as the locks, presumably they arch in such a way that they will accommodate wide and narrow boats of the same height. Are there any documented cases where this is not true? -- PBS ( talk) 09:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Copied from Template talk:Convert#Feet and Inches or Feet and a decimal
For an subject whose roots are in the 18th or 19th century and using definitions based in imperial units, would it not make more sense to use imperial first and add the metric in parenthesis? {{convert|7|ft|1|in|m}} => 7 feet 1 inch (2.16 m) looks better IMHO. I know we are all being forced into SI these days, but this is a historic topic, not 21st C research! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit on 11 April 2020 that added a history section, however user:Arrivisto you provided no sources for any on the information you added. As the rest of the article is fully cited, I am CHALLENGING you to provide citations in the near future for the text you added, because I will remove any text that is not supported by citations. Also as the rest of the article is in metric measurements with imperial measurements in brackets, please follow that style (see WP:UNIT); and it is "14 ft" not 14' ( WP:UNITSYMBOLS § Specific units). -- PBS ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ask any UK canal boater "What is the longest a narrowboat may be" and you will invariablyget the answer "72 feer". Ask again what the optimum length is to navigate the majority of canals, and you will get the answer "57 (or 58) feet". Ask why a widebeam may not negotiate narrow canals, and you will get the answer, "Because only a a 6'10" narrowboat may fit into a narrow lock". QED! I am not a luddite, and I would very much like the UK to adopt full metrication;but in ssme things (pints of beer, people's height and weights, boat lengths), people persist in thinking in imperial terms. If one must have metric equivalents on this page, I suppose that's fine; but put feet first, and metres in brackets afterwards. Arrivisto ( talk) 10:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The citation style of this article is
WP:CITESHORT using {{
sfn}}
and {{
harvnb}}
etc where appropriate.
@ user:Arrivisto I have left some of the citations you have provided as long inline citations along with the text that they support, pleas provide full citations where I have added "[full citation needed]". One this is done if you are uncomfortable with citation templates I will convert them (full citations include author, year, title [edition], location, publisher, ISBN if it exits and the page range see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books).
I have also marked two citations with "[unreliable source?]". Here are copies for further discussion:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)They were added to support the sentence:
-- PBS ( talk) 16:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states "a further restriction is that, if a cruising widebeam is to negotiate bridges and tunnels, its air draft must allow adequate clearance."
Most narrowboat sides slope slightly inwards from gunwale. I presume this is so the top edge of the roof does not hit the arch of a bridge (because if the bridge had straight sides (like a lock) there would be no need for this feature).
I can see that in certain circumstances that an arch might be a problem, forcing widebeams to have a lower roof (than a narrowboat), but given that the bridges and tunnels on a navigation were designed to take boats of the same width as the locks, presumably they arch in such a way that they will accommodate wide and narrow boats of the same height. Are there any documented cases where this is not true? -- PBS ( talk) 09:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)