Talk:Aqueduct (structure)

Books
68.9.107.138 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)In one of the Hornblower books HH travels to London by boat in a new canal/aqueduct complete with tunnels. Is this a real thing?

To answer my own question: Nope. that's the Thames and Severn Canal.

In the history section, 4th para it says "The developments of new materials (such as concrete...". i thought the Romans had concrete? including hydraulic concrete? David Woodward 06:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mathur Aqueduct Image
I think the Mathur Aqueduct image is placed poorly. It was built in 1966, but it's right under the heading "ancient aqueducts", suggesting that the aqueduct is ancient. Should we move it somewhere else?

--JB Gnome (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

1911 addition
There is a general guideline that 1911 text before it is added needs to be vetted against modern sources and re-written to modern standards. Raw dumps are not good form (wikilinks and section breaks are a minor part). This article was fairly concise, now it is real hodge-podge of raw-1911 text and other Wikipedian text. I would like to suggest removing the 1911 text, everting back to the previous article before too much time has passed, and instead add the 1911 article to the References section, either with a link to an online source, or if none exists, recreating the article in Wikisource. Comments. Stbalbach 17:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Roman aqueducts
I propose creating a new article that specializes on Roman aqueducts. It would contain much of the historical information in this article, and add additional information, including a summary of facts and figures for aqueducts in the ancient Roman world. I think this would be useful because although this page is properly about aqueducts in general, much (most?) of the information on this page is really about Roman aqueducts. And although there are pages already for specific Roman aqueducts, there is no general page to speak about the overall system. Opinions, anyone? Mlouns 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea I would support that makes a lot of sense. With a section here called "==Roman aqueducts==" with a 1-paragraph summary and "Main article" tag to the Roman aqueduct article. --Stbalbach 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea what this article was talking about until I read this and looked at this. -anon

it did not help me with what i was looking for... but it has good information for facts about the aqueducts only. Σκατá <--- greek for poo

Water slide
Would a waterslide be considered an aqueduct? Heh. Fredil Yupigo 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. No, that would be a flume.Nankai (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions. List of aqueducts. Templates.
1. In order to make the article more readable we need to move the list of aqueducts to a new separate article similar to List of reservoirs and dams in the United States.

2. In order to make aqueducts articles readable, we need to use a infobox similar to Template:Infobox_lake or Template:Infobox dam. The following attributes are suggested:
 * name
 * location, e.g. Wales.
 * location, coordinates (longitude, latitude) in "coor" format
 * image
 * image caption
 * tunnel or channel
 * length
 * section - rectangular or circular
 * width and height (may be many)
 * diameter (may be many)
 * what it connects
 * maintaining entity
 * opening date
 * closing date?
 * date construction began

A request to create a template has been submitted Requested_templates

Solarapex 11:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Template now exists
A new template has been created. It might not have as much stuff as you want, but it's a start. It is Template:infobox_Aqueduct and the two types I designed it for are used in Quabbin Aqueduct and Chicopee Valley Aqueduct. Cheers --LymanSchool 00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good start and ideal for those "water transport" type aqueducts. I found it hard to fit the data I wanted to have displayed, without excessive use of the "extra" box (e.g. towpaths, boats able to pass, etc.). Therefore I took that template, added bits from the bridge template, and other bits I wanted, and made a new template for "Navigable Aqueducts", I've now changed all the UK Aqueducts to the new template (Template:Infobox AqueductNavigable) Ronhjones (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Links
A number of links in this article are completely irrelevant. (e.g. "digging", "spur", "highway") Needs a fix? 70.179.127.215 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead
I heard that there was lead on the aqueducts, or somewhere near them, which contaminated the Roman water supply. It's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.petralia (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested split

 * Oppose -- An aqueduct is literally a channel which leads water. I see no object in splitting this article.  All it will do is mean that people have to look in several places to find a full account of the subject.  It is not as if this article is excessively long.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposer's rational, this article currently describes 2.5 different topics;
 * water-distribution systems—generally consisting of channels, canals, pipes, tunnels, siphons, leats, and bridges-that-carry-water (aka Aqueduct).
 * bridges that transport water (aka Aqueduct).
 * bridges that transport water, specifically for transportation; a particularly impressive subsection (owing to the scale of the constructions) that already has its own incoming redirect and internal link (Navigable aqueduct).
 * the fourth meaning of Aqueduct is a medical term that is already split out, but which I pointed to for consistency.
 * This article (for instance in the "List of ...") contained in the article jumps back and forth between different meanings. A dictionary is a work indexed by the word (with alternative meanings shown).  An encyclopedia is a work indexed by discrete topic with see also and various disambiguity pages and macros to link between different topics that share a common term—that page already exists at Aqueduct (disambiguation) listing the discrete meanings.
 * The different meanings can be fairly easily segregated based on their similarity
 * water supply channels tend to longer than one kilometre
 * bridges that transport water tend to be less than one kilometre.
 * bridges holding water for transport tend to be less than one kilometre and wider than two metres.
 * biological aqueducts tend to be less than ten centimetres diameter and less than one metre in length.
 * Based on WP:DISAMBIG, these should probably be separated, although not necessarily using the (example) names suggested. With care being taken to integration with Roman aqueduct (mostly describing meaning (1), but with all the photographic demonstrations being of meaning (2)).  —Sladen (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support -- The problem with the word "Aqueduct" is that is means rather different things to a different set of users. In the US, it would probably be "Water Transported for Drinking", in the UK it would be "Navigable Aqueducts" due to the large number of that type, etc.  So I would prefer a single disambiguation and then pick the type I wanted (which for me, in UK, are the Navigable Aqueducts). Ronhjones (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Ron Jones, there is a significant difference in understanding between US and UK on the normal use of the term and it's a functional distinction. A complicating factor is that a structure can easily serve both purposes (e.g. Pontcysyllte) but that's easy to deal with. Roman aqueducts were almost exclusively used for water supply despite the fact that the memorable ones are bridges. The medical term can have a redirection. Chris55 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

please see also the section Split proposal (2) below

Baca - underground aqueduct in Arabian desert
“I remember that some years ago I was investigating the word ‘Baca,’ which you have in the English Bible — ‘Passing through the valley of Baca, make it a well.’ I found in the Hebrew dictionary that there was a traveller named Burkhart, who said that ‘Baca’ meant mulberry trees. That was not very enlightening. I could not see how mulberries had anything to do with water. I looked up all the authority of the scholars in Germany and England since Burkhart’s time and found they had all quoted Burkhart. Just one scholar at the back of it! When I was travelling in the Orient, I found that we had delicious water here and there. The water sprang up apparently out of the ground in the midst of the desert. I asked my brother who was a missionary where this water came from. He said, ‘They bring this water from the mountains. It is an underground aqueduct. They cover it over to prevent it from evaporating.’ Now the name of that underground aqueduct was Baca. Robert Dick Wilson, quoted in Fuller, D. O., "Which Bible?"

I believe there was an article in Scientific American, possibly about 1960, regarding this system of aqueducts. Would appreciate more information: How is it managed? cleaned? 207.144.196.55 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Charles Tompkins
 * Whether this is the correct identification of "Baca", there was (probably is) a Persian system of whereby water that falls as snow in the mountains is conducted through underground channels to irrigate the plains, which would otherwise be desert. I remember reading about this in a popular scientific journal probably about 1966-69 when I was at school, and would also like to know more.  Perhaps some one can identify the aritcle and write it up.  It is even possible that an article exists in WP and needs to be linked.  This will be known by a Farsi term, and unrelated to any Hebrew one (it being a Semitic language, like Arabic).  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I made the above comment, I was thinking of Qanat. This belongs in an irrigation category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel Section Copyright Violation?
The Israel section was copied directly from a news article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.131.92 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have now removed that section. There were lots of press reports (all similar), most were post the date that the data was added here - BUT I then found one that was added some 12h earlier, so that confirms a copyvio.  I have annotated the removal with "remove Israel section - blatant copyvio of http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/37097629/, published some 12h before being added here."  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Water Screw
The line "Archimedes invented the water screw to raise water for use in irrigation of croplands." is unfounded in that, to my knowledge, there is no evidence of the big A inventing the water screw in which it is so famously named after him. Any suggestions on how to word this correctly? PinothyJ (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)…


 * The sentence appears out of place unless there is an assertion that the Archimedes screw was used in conjunction with aqueducts. A brief look through sources doesn't suggest any evidence of this. Chris55 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Role of gravity?
Aren't aqueducts "powered" (so to speak), by gravity? Certainly in Rome they were. Shouldn't this be noted? 98.82.3.6 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the objective is primarily to prevent the water going downhill as little as possible. There has to be a slight slope, so that the water flows.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian aqueducts inaccurate
I have an issue with the section about Indian aqueducts. It is factually incorrect and should be rewritten. I quote: "The Indian subcontinent is believed to have some of the earliest aqueducts. Evidence can be found at the sites of present day Hampi, Karnataka. The massive aqueducts near river Tungabhadra supplying irrigation water were once 15 miles (24 km) long.[3] The waterways supplied water to royal bath tubs." The Hampi settlement starts out only in 1st century A.D. and aqueducts there were built much later. The aqueduct and dam at the Tungabhadra river was built by a ruler that died in 1399 A.D. (please see from the book cited as reference http://books.google.ca/books?id=_kc3LKI_slEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.152 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * I propose that Flume be merged into Aqueduct. I think that the content in the Flume article can easily be explained in the context of Aqueduct, and the Aqueduct article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Flume will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Nankai (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The two concepts are similar, but have important differences. A flume is designed to carry materials with the aid of water, while an aqueduct carries only water.  I feel these are sufficiently different as to warrant separate articles.  Oppose merger.  The Interior  (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that some flumes are used to transport materials, but others are simply aqueducts; if you remove the the bits of Flume that are not about transport of water is there much left?Nankai (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better merge would be Log flume into Flume. That would fill out the flume article better, and highlight the differences.  The Interior  (Talk) 19:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above suggestion is a good idea.Nankai (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I further propose that Leat be merged into Aqueduct.Nankai (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) (same issues so can be dealt with in the same discussion).


 * I further propose that the brief section Power canals be moved here from the article Canal (the article is mostly about artificial waterways; a power canal is not a waterway.) Nankai (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I further propose that the brief section Rill be moved here from the article Rill. Nankai (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Modified the link as I just modified the rill article. And, yes that section could be merged as suggested. Vsmith (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I further propose that Acequia be merged into Aqueduct. Nankai (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming to this from Leat I see no real relationship that suggests leat should be merged with Aqueduct. A leat may include an aqueduct but it certainly is not one. -- Herby talk thyme 11:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the article Leat is that it is (at least initially) about the word leat and not about a concept, so it violates WP:DICT. Leats are called leats in the area where that word is used, and I am sure people who call leats leats think an aqueduct is something else, but it isn't really, it's just somewhere else. The article Controlled-access highway provides a good model of how a concept with a diversity of names can be handled on Wikipedia. There's nothing much separating a freeway, a motorway and an autobahn except for their locale. I'm suggesting that the same applies to leat, acequia and aqueduct, all of which I would call a water race in my native language of New Zealand English.Nankai (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose:The definitions are similar but not equivalent. Aquaducts are historicaly important structures. If the sections about the historical and modern aquaducts are splitted the merger with the said articles and modern aquaducts can be discussed. But in any case historical aquaducts should not be included in the merger. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is trying to do far too much, and an attempt to merge will take out a lot of info to the detriment of the project. For instance, both acequia and leat have large quantities of regional content that has low value to the concept of aqueducts globally, but this information is still likely worth keeping.
 * More practically, what is is an aqueduct? There are two primary meanings that this article hasn't separated (water channel or a bridge).
 * The aqueduct-as-a-bridge has been partially split out to navigable aqueduct, but that doesn't cover the case where its a water supply, not a canal, on the bridge.
 * As for the water channel meaning there are many different purposes I can see. These include:


 * 1) Supply of drinking water
 * 2) Supply of water for irrigation
 * 3) Supply of water for hydroelectric power (eg power canal)
 * 4) Supply of water for use by a water wheel (eg mill race)
 * 5) Supply of water for decorative purposes (eg a modern rill)
 * In general, the first cases are longer than the later ones. An aqueduct for drinking water is likely to be long. Mill races can be as short as a few metres. But there are exceptions and some mill races can be long.
 * Some waterways built for other purposes now only function as a water supply - this includes some flumes and canals. All this means in actual practice there's overlap between all these concepts from a garden rill up to a canal, and this is reflected within the regional terms.
 * I'd suggest getting this article rewritten to provide a better structure to discuss the various functions of an aqueduct - including info from the other articles as appropriate without redirecting those articles. The first step to that is get water supplies properly separated from bridges. Once that's done, it will be possible to work out if the various articles above should be merged to a specific section of this article, or if they should be kept as a stand-alone, per summary style guidance.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nilf raises some good points here. Maybe Aqueduct should be separated into Aqueduct (bridge) and Aqueduct (watercourse). Maybe the latter should have a more universal name as Aqueduct to mean a water supply in a modern context seems to be an American English usage; in other parts of the world it seems to refer to an ancient structure.Nankai (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To give some idea of what a split Aqueduct article could separate to, I have created rough drafts here:
 * User:Nankai/Aqueduct_(bridge)
 * User:Nankai/Aqueduct_(watercourse)
 * Nankai (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One problem is Ancient/Modern may not be a useful dichotomy. Aqueduct (of both sorts) have been constructed and used from before the Roman period, right through to the present. Major aqueduct construction drops off in Europe in the post-Roman period, but you don't have to wait to modern times to get new ones. Large-scale aqueducts are being built in the UK in the 16th C. That's definitely not ancient (but its same period as Aztec works), and its not modern either. A by-location listing of aqueducts around the world seems logical. At the same time - its the ancient aqueducts (especially Roman) that are likely of highest interest to readers. Providing a "history" section might be best way to do that.
 * The uses section in both variants needs to be beefed up substantially, basically to discuss all possible movements of water not just irrigation and civic supply.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for contributions to this discussion. I can see that the merger discussion is not reaching much consensus, so I won't act further until the idea of splitting the article is fully discussed (which I suggested in this discussion but have now more formally proposed below). Accordingly I'll remove all the "merge" tags for now Nankai (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

'''the above discussion has been copied to Talk:Aqueduct_(watercourse) where it can be discussed in the context of the newly-split article Nankai (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal (2)
I propose that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see above, about halfway up this talk page).Nankai (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC) To give some idea of what a split Aqueduct article could separate to, I have created rough drafts here: Nankai (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Nankai/Aqueduct_(bridge)
 * User:Nankai/Aqueduct_(watercourse)
 * Support I think that making the Aqueduct (disambiguation) into the main hit would be the best solution. There is a lot of US/UK language differences with this word. Aqueduct as a bridge is not just ancient - anyone in the UK will see aqueduct as a bridge carrying water over something else - be it with or without boats (it wouldn't be differentiated - to us, bridges carry roads, viaducts carry railways and aqueducts carry water.). The DAB page as the main hit would get around this issue - readers can be sure they get the page they are looking for. Further to that maybe Aqueduct (bridge) and Navigable aqueduct can also be considered for a later merge, as they will be both bridges carrying water - we've plenty in the UK, trouble is, people keep restoring old canals here (2000 miles is just not enough ;-) ) and "aqueducts" become "navigable aqueducts" again.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The general idea is sound (and I support in principle). The draft articles are starting points but a number of comments:
 * 1) The draft articles are copyvios at present. See Copying within Wikipedia for guidance, at minimum an edit summary link to an old version of this article (like this) is required.
 * 2) In both articles: The lead sections need substantially more info. As both leads should naturally link to the other article, hatnotes aren't needed.
 * 3) In the watercourse article: Drop the sentence "There are many other names for an artificial watercourse..." Each of those terms describes a specific type of watercourse, and are not synonyms for "aqueduct". They should not introduced in the lead in a manner that suggests they are alternative names, which they aren't. To compare with roads, aqueduct/leat/aquecia is more like road/autobahn/byway than motorway/freeway/autobahn.
 * 4) Both articles need expansion of course, to add info on uses and more locations. And better pics too. Watercourses aren't just "ancient" or "in the USA" (how about the Israeli system?). Bridges aren't just "Roman" or "canal bridges" (how about sewer aqueducts in Australia?).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I could support this. It's a broad term, and this seems to be a way forward to clarifying things for the reader.  The Interior  (Talk) 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment --
 * 1) I do not see a problem with copying from existing articles, where the old one is to become a dab.
 * 2) I think that the proposal has the effect of splitting out one type of aqueduct, namely a watercourse bridge, from the generality of arteficial watercourses. I think one could identify more uses of the water:
 * 3) Drinking water supply (e.g. Elan aqueduct)
 * 4) Irrigation
 * 5) Leats for mills or hushing -- I would prefer this to remain a separate article, linked by a "main" template, rather than being merged.
 * 6) Canal transport -- possibly the only case where aqueduct refers specifically to a bridge: Pont du gard and other Roman aqueduct bridges were merely taking a watercourse aqueduct across a valley. I can also think of a case where an aqueduct conducts a (natural) brook over a canal.
 * 7) I can see a possible case for splitting out a new article called Aqueduct bridge to discuss these in more detail in a sub-article (again linked by a "main" template. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Copy/pasting from an existing article is fine as long as its attributed (easy to fix). "Aqueduct" can refer to non-canal bridges specifically. The Pont du Gard is a bridge, and the bridge itself is generally called an "aqueduct" (eg by UNESCO). Likewise this bridge is an aqueduct, but its not carrying a canal.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There will always be anomalies as your "Aqueduct bridge", which don't easily fit into one nice box - it's just the nature of the beast - e.g. is Pontcysyllte Aqueduct for boats, or for drinking water? - answer it's both - helping deliver 12 million gallons of water per day to reservoirs some 40 miles away.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My example isn't an anomaly really, its just an aqueduct (of the bridge type) carrying a non-canal, demonstrating that the word "aqueduct" isn't exclusively used to mean a canal bridge in the UK (though it is the most common meaning). In common with the other bridges mentioned here, it was built to carry a waterway and is called an "aqueduct". The purpose of the waterway each bridge carries is different (and can have multiple uses), but all are still aqueducts. Aqueducts (of the bridge type), regardless of their function, are somewhat distinct from the watercourse variety - so both {bridge, watercourse} and {{canal bridge, non-canal bridge}, watercourse}) are more logical divisions than {canal bridge, everything else}.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support making the disambiguation page primary. The topic has already been split once, with Navigable aqueducts having been given a separate article. I'm not convinced about splitting the current article. It only appears to concentrate on water supply bridges because of the many (spectacular) photographs in the article. If these were more balanced with photos of other watercourses (there are plenty around) it may not need it. The text is much more balanced. Chris55 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support I originally proposed much the same at . For the article(s) to be useful and focused they would really benefit from being split into their own topics.  This is why Wikipedia has a system of disambiguation, and it makes sense to follow it.  The primary term of simply "aqueduct" is so overloaded and varied by local use I would like to see all of the content moved off it into the separate articles, and for aqueduct to be a disambiguation page linking to all of them, and to Wiktionary.  By establishing it as the central disambiguation page it should also help prevent ever more pictures of Roman aqueducts being dumped into it.    For the query about the actual mechanics of splitting; this is generally done by including previous page history (list of authors) in the first revision with a summary edit message that states it can be found in this revision.  Another revision is made afterwards to remove that block from the page itself, leaving it recoverable from the history.  This is done all the time, and should not be a blocked to making it happen.  —Sladen (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Sladen, would you be happy to carry out the split? I sense that you would get it right.Nankai (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)