I've reformatted this list several times to try to make the data more understandable & added notes & references where necessary. All available data has been included. I know there are still 2 red links which I will be working on but I hope it meets featured list criteria. —
Rodtalk08:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Nice list, could you please explain briefly on what a "listed building grade" is so readers won't have to open the main article to get the information? --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is very nice. Sorry, but I have bashed the lead around a bit. I have a few queries/comments on the rise/fall column. (i) Are the rise/fall measurements really accurate to 0.1mm? (e.g. "7ft 8 ins (2236.8mm)") (ii) The smallest change is over 1 foot, so perhaps the metre would be a better choice of unit. (185928mm is distinctly odd) (iii) Given that we are going from Bristol to the Thames, would it be possible to say whether the measurement is a "rise" or "fall" in that direction? (iv) Some figures for rise/fall are missing, particularly for the locks on the Avon. --
ALoan(Talk)12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comments (& bashing the lead). I did wonder about the units, my source (Pearsons book) gives feet & inches & I converted them. I will redo to meters & remove the mm asap. Rise & fall is a difficult one as it depends on the direction the boat is travelling in. Also the highest point is the summit between
Wootton Top Lock &
Crofton Locks so everything could be said to be downhill from there. A few on the Avon Navigation I do not have data for (they are missing in the book) & I've looked around but not yet been able to find this data. —
Rodtalk12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, if you have a reference in feet and (integer) inches, you shouldn't really convert to anything with an accuracy greater than 2.5cm. Tenths of a millimetre are much too small! "x.xx m" should be ok, though. As I said, the numbering gives you a direction of travel (Bristol to the Thames). A footnote can make it clear that it would be the opposite in the other direction. Are you sure there are no ups and downs (valleys, hills) on the way from the global maximum to either end? Good luck with getting the extra data - it must be around somewhere. I seem to remember that you can buy maps of canal routes with locks and falls marked? --
ALoan(Talk)13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Units now converted to metres. There are lots of ups and downs (valleys, hills) along the route - this is the whole point of the locks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the "global maximum" comment & having looked at
Maxima and minima, I' still being dense :-( Although we have the direction of travel from the numbering Bristol -> Reading you are only going up to Crofton & then down to the Thams. I will continue to search for the missing data, but bought/borrowed the relevant books & maps for a recent holiday (which triggered these articles) & the data for those locks is mssing. I have a couple of contacts I will try to get more info. —
Rodtalk13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I guess the point is whether it goes gradually up to the top and then gradually down the other side, or whether it goes up a bit, then down a bit, then up a bit more to the top, then down a bit, then up a bit, and then down a bit more to the end. Is it really rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall, or rise, fall, rise, rise, top, fall, fall, rise, fall. --
ALoan(Talk)14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
(Continueation the above)... That's correct. From each end canal rises until it reaches the pound between Wootton Top Lock (#54) and Crofton Top Lock (#55). I've added a note to the article accordingly.
Tompw16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Response - I've now managed to find all but one of the rise & fall data (the one at Hanham seems to be truly unknown - I'm tempted to go along with a tape measure!!!). As as result I've changed the column width to take account of individual referencing of sources - it does mean that one reference is repeated many times & I can't see any way around this. I'm beginning to wish I'd never put in the rise & fall data I did have.—
Rodtalk13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks I've reduced the reference list as you suggested (I've also used the same technique on the
Kennet and Avon Canal article). You may have to give me a few days for the last (
Hanham Lock) rise and fall data. A very helpful man from
British Waterways, who uses Wikipedia but doesn't feel confident to edit pages, is looking through their records & if it can't be found has volunteered to climb into the lock with a tape measure!—
Rodtalk09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)reply
To the best of my knowledge (after extensive library & online searches) & that of everyone I've asked this is not published anywhere. If this list can't reach featured quality without this data & we are not allowed to measure it (not extensive research as far as I can see) how can this list meet the crtieria???? —
Rodtalk10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I suppose I can't really oppose for the absence of unverifiable information. If it is added, it would be sensible to add a note on how it was obtained. --
ALoan(Talk)09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I have a few comments.
Why are the Bath Locks handled differently from the other multiple-lock entries (e.g. Semington Locks)? I'd say they should all either be expanded to individual rows (with some entries sharing wikilinks, or using redirects) or else remove the Bath Locks detail.
I'm glad the accuracy of the metric numbers has been changed, though I'd have gone to just 1 decimal place - it should be more readable. Regardless, I recommend moving the metric value to its own column (removing the need for "m" units), making it right-aligned, and displaying the same number of decimal places for every row. I think that could look neater. See the
List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon for an example.
Thanks for your support. I've seperated the
Bath Locks on the list. The reason for the difference is that Bath locks are all named whereas
Semington,
Seend,
Caen Hill &
Crofton are not named individually. I've changed the metric measurements to one decimal place & given them their own column as you suggest. I'm sorry I didn't know what an n-dash is & having looked at
Dash don't know how to put one in (help appreciated). —
Rodtalk20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
According to the
Semington Locks article, they are called Buckley's (15) and Barrett's (16). I have just noticed that you don't have rise/fall figures for all the entries – which is essential really. Also, since you say the canal goes up to a single peak and down again, it would be interesting to know the total rise from 1..54 and fall from 55 to 107. Perhaps you could add this to the lead.
re: n-dash. When you edit an article, there should be a box of symbols below the "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." warning. The very first symbol after the word "Insert:" is an n-dash. The next is an m-dash, which is used for open ranges (such as when specifying the birth/death range in a biography for someone who isn't dead).
Colin°
Talk08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I've split the
Semington Locks entries as you suggest (but don't have rise & fall data individually). I am awaiting a call back from BWB for the missing data. I've inserted n-dash, although I can't see any difference, another piece of new style guide for me. —
Rodtalk09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I added the designer and construction dates from the canal article but no I see that these disagree with dates already in the article. What are the dates in the first paragraph? Also if there are only 90 locks in the canal, why do we list 105?
Rmhermen23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for editing the lead. I have removed the other dates because they were confusing - they related to the Avon & Kennet navigations which were opened before the K&A proper between Bath & Newbury. The 90 locks do not include the navigations with 6 & 9 locks which make up the other 15 - however the full canal is named, numbered & administered as one canal. I hoped I had made this clear in notes A & B but perhaps I need to put this in the lead as well? —
Rodtalk07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good to me! However, an article on Ufton Lock, explaining when, how and why it was removed (during the 70s restoration I suppose) would be a good addition, if you have the information (I'm left wondering how you go about removing a lock from a canal!). --
G Rutter11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
ResponseThanks for the support- I will look for info on Ufton Lock, but I'm guessing you just remove the lock gates & leave it as a narrowing —
Rodtalk13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
That doesn't deal with the problem that the water is at different levels on either side of the lock (else, why was there ever a lock there?) The only ways I can see to do it would be either to make the canal much deeper above the lock, or the banks much higher below it, both of which seem thoroughly impractical! --
OpenToppedBus -
Talk to the driver15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The image problems haven't totally been eliminated. Viewed at 800x600, there are gaps caused by pictures clashing with the table elements. However, this is not a serious enough problem, in my opinion, to oppose this. --
OpenToppedBus -
Talk to the driver09:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (I'd suggest using the same resolution for all grid refs rather than having a mix of 6- & 8- fig ones, and Ordnance Survey is mis-spelled once, but those are the only problems I could spot. Easily meets the FL criteria)
SP-KP11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Excellent list, however is it necessary for each citation sheet to have its own access date? Would it be possible for them to be all checked and updated to the same day as this would reduce the size of the references section. I realise this may be hard with over a hundred of them. Thanks
Suicidalhamster23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the support - but I don't understand your comment as, even if they all had the same access date, they point to seperate documents & therefore the list would be the same size. —
Rodtalk08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry I didnt really explain. On my screen each reference for a citation sheet takes up two lines because of the access date, which adds 'retrieved on ...' etc to each reference. If these were removed the refernece section should be smaller as each link to a citation sheet generally only takes up one line as in the
Avon and
Cleveland lists. I realise this is purely aesthetics so feel free to leave it as it is.
Suicidalhamster14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean now. On my large high res screen they fit on one line each but I've tried reducing the screen res & reproduced the problem, however I believe it is good practice to include the date as these documents do change (even if only occasionally) as recomended on
Template talk:Cite web.—
Rodtalk16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Although I'd like to see a few more stubs in place of the remaining redlinks, this is comprehensive, well presented, and well referenced. Excellent work.
Durova02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Preivously denied featured status, but the team has put together some great work on this article to make it look special. Now all links are blue, & thanks to me, it now have roughly 1 or 2 pictures per letter, except for ones with no pictures, like x etc. Basically nothing really starts with x, but that's beside the point. I hope you find it in your hearts to support this list make from the blood & sweat of so many html programmers. Thanks,
Spawn Man03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A great and unique list but I don't like the choice of pictures. Many of them depict obsolete representations and fragments of bones. Is this because we don't have dino pictures?
CG10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well... basically yes. Although all links are blue, very few have photos or pictures. I feel that the pictures are a good respresentative of different dinosaurs & different styles from different periods. You can't tell me those old pictures are interesting; the way we view & construct dinosaurs has varied greatly. And considering that all dinosaurs we find are from fossils or "fragments of bones", I feel that those pictures are okay? Thanks for you support -
Spawn Man00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I haven't been able to find a single non-listed dinosaur in that entry. Even the bloody
Neovenator is there. It's about as comprehensive as it can get; it's even annotated. -
Mgm|
(talk)10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The table seems to fit all of the criteria. The problems this article had the
first time it was nominated have been fixed. The
second time it failed because someone had replaced the whole thing with a template, but that has now also been fixed. --
Arctic Gnome22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Several images have obsolete licencing tags and others are not tagged at all. In order to be promoted to a feature list all the images must be tagged properly.Jay3218302:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is that really the only free picture of Paul Martin around? Also References need to be formatted using {{cite web}} or at least convey the information required in that template. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ17:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I've reformatted this list several times to try to make the data more understandable & added notes & references where necessary. All available data has been included. I know there are still 2 red links which I will be working on but I hope it meets featured list criteria. —
Rodtalk08:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Nice list, could you please explain briefly on what a "listed building grade" is so readers won't have to open the main article to get the information? --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is very nice. Sorry, but I have bashed the lead around a bit. I have a few queries/comments on the rise/fall column. (i) Are the rise/fall measurements really accurate to 0.1mm? (e.g. "7ft 8 ins (2236.8mm)") (ii) The smallest change is over 1 foot, so perhaps the metre would be a better choice of unit. (185928mm is distinctly odd) (iii) Given that we are going from Bristol to the Thames, would it be possible to say whether the measurement is a "rise" or "fall" in that direction? (iv) Some figures for rise/fall are missing, particularly for the locks on the Avon. --
ALoan(Talk)12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comments (& bashing the lead). I did wonder about the units, my source (Pearsons book) gives feet & inches & I converted them. I will redo to meters & remove the mm asap. Rise & fall is a difficult one as it depends on the direction the boat is travelling in. Also the highest point is the summit between
Wootton Top Lock &
Crofton Locks so everything could be said to be downhill from there. A few on the Avon Navigation I do not have data for (they are missing in the book) & I've looked around but not yet been able to find this data. —
Rodtalk12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, if you have a reference in feet and (integer) inches, you shouldn't really convert to anything with an accuracy greater than 2.5cm. Tenths of a millimetre are much too small! "x.xx m" should be ok, though. As I said, the numbering gives you a direction of travel (Bristol to the Thames). A footnote can make it clear that it would be the opposite in the other direction. Are you sure there are no ups and downs (valleys, hills) on the way from the global maximum to either end? Good luck with getting the extra data - it must be around somewhere. I seem to remember that you can buy maps of canal routes with locks and falls marked? --
ALoan(Talk)13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Units now converted to metres. There are lots of ups and downs (valleys, hills) along the route - this is the whole point of the locks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the "global maximum" comment & having looked at
Maxima and minima, I' still being dense :-( Although we have the direction of travel from the numbering Bristol -> Reading you are only going up to Crofton & then down to the Thams. I will continue to search for the missing data, but bought/borrowed the relevant books & maps for a recent holiday (which triggered these articles) & the data for those locks is mssing. I have a couple of contacts I will try to get more info. —
Rodtalk13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I guess the point is whether it goes gradually up to the top and then gradually down the other side, or whether it goes up a bit, then down a bit, then up a bit more to the top, then down a bit, then up a bit, and then down a bit more to the end. Is it really rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall, or rise, fall, rise, rise, top, fall, fall, rise, fall. --
ALoan(Talk)14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
(Continueation the above)... That's correct. From each end canal rises until it reaches the pound between Wootton Top Lock (#54) and Crofton Top Lock (#55). I've added a note to the article accordingly.
Tompw16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Response - I've now managed to find all but one of the rise & fall data (the one at Hanham seems to be truly unknown - I'm tempted to go along with a tape measure!!!). As as result I've changed the column width to take account of individual referencing of sources - it does mean that one reference is repeated many times & I can't see any way around this. I'm beginning to wish I'd never put in the rise & fall data I did have.—
Rodtalk13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks I've reduced the reference list as you suggested (I've also used the same technique on the
Kennet and Avon Canal article). You may have to give me a few days for the last (
Hanham Lock) rise and fall data. A very helpful man from
British Waterways, who uses Wikipedia but doesn't feel confident to edit pages, is looking through their records & if it can't be found has volunteered to climb into the lock with a tape measure!—
Rodtalk09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)reply
To the best of my knowledge (after extensive library & online searches) & that of everyone I've asked this is not published anywhere. If this list can't reach featured quality without this data & we are not allowed to measure it (not extensive research as far as I can see) how can this list meet the crtieria???? —
Rodtalk10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I suppose I can't really oppose for the absence of unverifiable information. If it is added, it would be sensible to add a note on how it was obtained. --
ALoan(Talk)09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I have a few comments.
Why are the Bath Locks handled differently from the other multiple-lock entries (e.g. Semington Locks)? I'd say they should all either be expanded to individual rows (with some entries sharing wikilinks, or using redirects) or else remove the Bath Locks detail.
I'm glad the accuracy of the metric numbers has been changed, though I'd have gone to just 1 decimal place - it should be more readable. Regardless, I recommend moving the metric value to its own column (removing the need for "m" units), making it right-aligned, and displaying the same number of decimal places for every row. I think that could look neater. See the
List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon for an example.
Thanks for your support. I've seperated the
Bath Locks on the list. The reason for the difference is that Bath locks are all named whereas
Semington,
Seend,
Caen Hill &
Crofton are not named individually. I've changed the metric measurements to one decimal place & given them their own column as you suggest. I'm sorry I didn't know what an n-dash is & having looked at
Dash don't know how to put one in (help appreciated). —
Rodtalk20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
According to the
Semington Locks article, they are called Buckley's (15) and Barrett's (16). I have just noticed that you don't have rise/fall figures for all the entries – which is essential really. Also, since you say the canal goes up to a single peak and down again, it would be interesting to know the total rise from 1..54 and fall from 55 to 107. Perhaps you could add this to the lead.
re: n-dash. When you edit an article, there should be a box of symbols below the "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." warning. The very first symbol after the word "Insert:" is an n-dash. The next is an m-dash, which is used for open ranges (such as when specifying the birth/death range in a biography for someone who isn't dead).
Colin°
Talk08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I've split the
Semington Locks entries as you suggest (but don't have rise & fall data individually). I am awaiting a call back from BWB for the missing data. I've inserted n-dash, although I can't see any difference, another piece of new style guide for me. —
Rodtalk09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I added the designer and construction dates from the canal article but no I see that these disagree with dates already in the article. What are the dates in the first paragraph? Also if there are only 90 locks in the canal, why do we list 105?
Rmhermen23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for editing the lead. I have removed the other dates because they were confusing - they related to the Avon & Kennet navigations which were opened before the K&A proper between Bath & Newbury. The 90 locks do not include the navigations with 6 & 9 locks which make up the other 15 - however the full canal is named, numbered & administered as one canal. I hoped I had made this clear in notes A & B but perhaps I need to put this in the lead as well? —
Rodtalk07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good to me! However, an article on Ufton Lock, explaining when, how and why it was removed (during the 70s restoration I suppose) would be a good addition, if you have the information (I'm left wondering how you go about removing a lock from a canal!). --
G Rutter11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
ResponseThanks for the support- I will look for info on Ufton Lock, but I'm guessing you just remove the lock gates & leave it as a narrowing —
Rodtalk13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
That doesn't deal with the problem that the water is at different levels on either side of the lock (else, why was there ever a lock there?) The only ways I can see to do it would be either to make the canal much deeper above the lock, or the banks much higher below it, both of which seem thoroughly impractical! --
OpenToppedBus -
Talk to the driver15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The image problems haven't totally been eliminated. Viewed at 800x600, there are gaps caused by pictures clashing with the table elements. However, this is not a serious enough problem, in my opinion, to oppose this. --
OpenToppedBus -
Talk to the driver09:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (I'd suggest using the same resolution for all grid refs rather than having a mix of 6- & 8- fig ones, and Ordnance Survey is mis-spelled once, but those are the only problems I could spot. Easily meets the FL criteria)
SP-KP11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Excellent list, however is it necessary for each citation sheet to have its own access date? Would it be possible for them to be all checked and updated to the same day as this would reduce the size of the references section. I realise this may be hard with over a hundred of them. Thanks
Suicidalhamster23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the support - but I don't understand your comment as, even if they all had the same access date, they point to seperate documents & therefore the list would be the same size. —
Rodtalk08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry I didnt really explain. On my screen each reference for a citation sheet takes up two lines because of the access date, which adds 'retrieved on ...' etc to each reference. If these were removed the refernece section should be smaller as each link to a citation sheet generally only takes up one line as in the
Avon and
Cleveland lists. I realise this is purely aesthetics so feel free to leave it as it is.
Suicidalhamster14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean now. On my large high res screen they fit on one line each but I've tried reducing the screen res & reproduced the problem, however I believe it is good practice to include the date as these documents do change (even if only occasionally) as recomended on
Template talk:Cite web.—
Rodtalk16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Although I'd like to see a few more stubs in place of the remaining redlinks, this is comprehensive, well presented, and well referenced. Excellent work.
Durova02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Preivously denied featured status, but the team has put together some great work on this article to make it look special. Now all links are blue, & thanks to me, it now have roughly 1 or 2 pictures per letter, except for ones with no pictures, like x etc. Basically nothing really starts with x, but that's beside the point. I hope you find it in your hearts to support this list make from the blood & sweat of so many html programmers. Thanks,
Spawn Man03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A great and unique list but I don't like the choice of pictures. Many of them depict obsolete representations and fragments of bones. Is this because we don't have dino pictures?
CG10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well... basically yes. Although all links are blue, very few have photos or pictures. I feel that the pictures are a good respresentative of different dinosaurs & different styles from different periods. You can't tell me those old pictures are interesting; the way we view & construct dinosaurs has varied greatly. And considering that all dinosaurs we find are from fossils or "fragments of bones", I feel that those pictures are okay? Thanks for you support -
Spawn Man00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I haven't been able to find a single non-listed dinosaur in that entry. Even the bloody
Neovenator is there. It's about as comprehensive as it can get; it's even annotated. -
Mgm|
(talk)10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The table seems to fit all of the criteria. The problems this article had the
first time it was nominated have been fixed. The
second time it failed because someone had replaced the whole thing with a template, but that has now also been fixed. --
Arctic Gnome22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Several images have obsolete licencing tags and others are not tagged at all. In order to be promoted to a feature list all the images must be tagged properly.Jay3218302:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is that really the only free picture of Paul Martin around? Also References need to be formatted using {{cite web}} or at least convey the information required in that template. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ17:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply