User talk:Bob1960evens/Archive2011

River Glen, Lincolnshire
Bob

You left me a message on my talk page concerning geological references. I make a lot of use of the published sheets of the British Geological Survey at their various scales. I have pretty much complete coverage of Wales and the Pennines and the west of England, reflecting my own interests but virtually nothing for the east. I find the associated memoirs and sheet explanations useful too, along with any number of reports etc - most in printed form but there are a number of quite useful reports downloadable at the BGS's site at www.bgs.ac.uk on stratigraphy etc. Follow the geological links from my user page and you'll see details of the various sources I have used from time to time. I'll take a look at the geology of the Glen if you like - or would you rather pursue it yourself? By the way it's good to see someone taking such an interest in waterways as you are - keep it up! cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. If you would like to take a look, that would be great. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with deadlinks
Thanks for the message. web.archive.org doesn't get everything particularly PDFs etc. I believe Checklinks and/or reflinks has a Beta test of a tool which will incorporate webarchive &/or other archive services if available when deadlinks are found.&mdash; Rod talk 13:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaced BSicon-files
Hello! Concerning this — you need not to worry about my iconpages. They are autogenerated to show whatever icons are named in a combinatory fashion, useful to highlight inconsistencies and lacks. You do whatever you need to do in the Commons (as also me and a lot of other BSicon enthusiasts), concerning renamings, additions and deletions — these tables will keep refecting what exists. Tuvalkin (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

new Citation template
Hi I've created Template:Wheeler1896 because the book has already been cited in about 20 articles. I've changed a slack handful of them already to pick up the template instead. I asked on Help_desk how to handle the various reprints, but no-one answered my actual questions. I was directed to the help desk by the talk page on template:cite book, which implied no-one would answer me there.

Thought you, of all people, might like to know about the new template.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kaniz Ali


The article Kaniz Ali has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Page continues to have notability problems and has been blanked twice by page creator. However, others have contributed good edits to the article, so it can't be a Author wants a speedy delete.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. If you'd like to respond to me personally, please do so on my user talk page as I won't be watching this page. Thanks. Banaticus (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Caistor Canal
Hi Bob1960evens. Thanks for your note. It does not look like vandalism to me, more like an well-intended edit, possibly by someone does does not understand citations and verification. It is not a canal that I have any references for, so I can't check using any of my references. If you have good reason to believe that the new additions are unsupported by the current citations, we can ask that editor, nicely, to supply a reference; and wait to see what transpires. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

River Weaver
Congratulations on getting this article to GA; it's an impressive piece of work, and a nice addition to the Cheshire Wikiproject. Sorry I missed your message on the talk page, but you obviously did not need any input! Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I spotted on your talk page that the Northwich Salt Museum has been renamed, so added that in and wikilinked it. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

River Don, South Yorkshire
Sorry, I thought that I had replied but I don't seem to have done so. By all means submit it to WP:GAN, I'll happily review it, but since the is a backlog elimination drive running this month I can't guarantee that someone else might not review it first. (I have a mini-queue of five reviews, either: On Hold/underway/not yet started). Pyrotec (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

River Don Navigation
Hi Dave, I see you have been busy again, with a new section of bridges. I have altered the map by widening it, so that some of those in the Rotherham area can show railway interconnections for context. I have been thinking of nominating the article for a Good Article review, but that will have to go on hold for a bit, unless you can help. There seem to be quite a few railway facts with no refs, and I wondered what your sources were for these. Do you have access to books or atlases that could provide suitable refs for the dates? So for Midland Railway bridges, for instance, there are four dates, and the fact that it is freight only. I don't have anything that covers that sort of stuff.

Also, the Bridge Street Bridge section seems a bit sad. There is a cursory mention of Chantry bridge, which must be one of the most important bridges historically on the whole system. Without the river, the navigation would not be a navigation, so I think we need to cover that one because of its significance. There seem to be lots of facts on the ref you give, and it must have a historical monuments record, too. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, Thanks for your comments on the Rotherham area bridges.  As you suggest, I will follow-up the railway references, expand the Bridge Street Bridge section (re Chantry Bridge) and perhaps include the other River Don crossings in that area.  Thanks also for adding extra information and missing references to so many of "my" sections in the Don articles.  Davebevis (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, Have now actioned the above.  Are there any further railway references that you consider weak or missing? Davebevis (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, Thanks for that. I have added a couple of wikilinks. I also have a book arriving which should give dates for freight-only designations, and another on Sheffield Sewage Works Railways, which might give some more info on Jordan's bridge. Were you thinking of adding bridges in Aldwarke/Mexborough? Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I have just noticed a problem with the images. They have an "Alt=Alternative Text" entry. This is to help visually impaired readers, so if there is an Alt entry, it should describe the image in general terms. (You can see it by hovering over the image). I have had a go at altering the Midland Railway bridges one. Would you like to have a go at some of the others? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, (A)  Re the Alt entries, it would be better if I removed this parameter entirely from all my images, rather than just repeating the caption.  Do you agree with this approach?  To be honest, I didn't properly understand the purpose of this parameter and just copied it, parrot-fashion, from someone else's article.  (B)  Re the Aldwarke/Mexborough section, I do intend to add bridges over the WHOLE length of the Don / Navigation, but this is very much a long-term project.  I'd rather investigate the various areas on-site, rather than do a desk-based exercise, and this will take a long time.  In terms of you seeking GA status for the article, I don't intend to do any more significant updates for at least 3 months.  Davebevis (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, the Alt text should definitely not repeat the caption. Visually impaired people use a screen reader to look at the article, and so the alt text should describe the scene, as the reader will already have picked up the caption. alt attribute discusses this. I don't think alt text is essential for GA, so deleting the attribute could be a good solution for now. (but we might as well leave Midland Bridges).


 * Thanks for the update on the remaining section. I was going to ask if you have a professional interest in bridges, or it is just a hobby. The pictures certainly improve the article a lot.Bob1960evens (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alt attribute now removed from most images in both Navigation and River articles. I don't have any professional interest in bridges.  I became interested in the Don after "discovering" the Five Weirs Walk 4 years ago and since then I have set about exploring the rest of it.  After doing some research on the structures, it seemed worthwhile documenting the results.  Wikipedia (and your superb work on the Navigation and River) seemed the perfect vehicle for that documentation. Davebevis (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Marvellous work you are doing on improving "my" sections! Just a couple of points about the Jordan Bridge section: (a) 3rd sentence - brich s/be brick and (b) final sentence - think this should be in the next (Holmes Lock) section.  By the way, is the 2002 Ian Allan publication any good and still on the market?  Davebevis (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, You can fix spelling anytime! I am not convinced about moving Holmes bridge. It is not the same as Holmes Lock bridge, and is much nearer to Jordans lock than Homes lock. If you follow Jordans bridge due east, it crosses the river channel (here flowing south). As for Ian Allan, it was on the market the other day. Amazon said there was only one left, so I bought it, but there is still only one left today. It shows all the lines, which are coloured to indicate passenger, freight, lifted, preserved, proposed, etc, but I was hoping it might have some dates, and it doesn't. I would really have liked Michael Cobb's railway atlas, but it is very expensive, and does not seem to be available. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, if you have no objections, I would like to move some of our recent discussion to the Don Navigation talk page, as that is where it really belongs, and the fact that there has been discussion about the content is good for the GA review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, No ojections to moving the discussions to the article talk page. By the way, you have done a brilliant job re-working the Navigation routemap in the Jordan / Holmes area.  It would have taken me hours to work out all the icon ID codes!  Davebevis (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just saying thanks
Just stopping by to say thanks for helping fix typos and such.   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  03:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of River Don Navigation
I've made a few initial observations here. I'm particularly concerned about the Bridge Street Bridge and Chantry Chapel section, which seems to have been largely copied. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:DaveBevis wrote most of the bridges section, and I had not spotted the issue. I'll rewrite it where appropriate. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't laying the blame at your door, I know how difficult it can be to develop an article started off by another editor, and what pitfalls there can be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know on my talk page when you think you're done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't taking it as blame or criticism. Since writing on wikipedia, I have learnt the meaning of "summarise in your own words", which I was never really very good at when they asked us to do it at school. Bob1960evens (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

River Maun
Hi Dave, I needed a picture for the River Maun article, and found one of yours on Geograph, which had been copied to Commons, so I have used it. Thanks. However, it is called "Mansfield - River Meden Trail", but shows the Maun, as the Meden is quite a bit further north. I don't know that there is much to be done, but thought I would mention it. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the error. The photo shows part of the Maun Valley Trail, not the River Meden Trail.  I have corrected the title on Geograph, but I don't think I can now change the title on Commons. Davebevis (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have put in a rename request on commons - . Scillystuff (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rochdale Canal
Bob, you have added short references to Squires but there is no entry for the book. Can you add the book details? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was working on it, but there was an edit conflict, and I saved the wrong bit locally. I had to re-type a load of stuff, and then the server was locked, and I lost it again. The third attempt was ok. I nearly know this section by heart. I have created a proper bibliography now. Just got 2000 onwards to do. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, you can usually cut and paste in the browser window if the back button works when you get a server problem. Keith D (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal
Thanks for adding the refs etc on Chard Canal. It reminded me I wanted to ask if you would be kind enough to take a glance at Kennet and Avon Canal which some of us are trying to get up to FA standard. A current peer review is also in progress.&mdash; Rod talk 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rod. I have had a quick look. I think the maps could do with a little attention. Most now use the BS-header, rather than the Rail-header2, which makes it much easier for people to locate them for editing. I would trim out the Kennet and Avon Canal from the title as well, to make it look less cluttered. There seems to be an inconsistency with the treatment of the River Kennet, which leaves the canal 5 times, but fails to rejoin it. Bruce Tunnel needs a new icon or an overlay for the railway crossing.
 * On the refs, I think a bibliography would help, though this might be my personal opinion. The reflist just looks very cluttered, when it has every detail of books like Clew (1968) and Allsop (1987) repeated 7 or more times. The images in the Newbury to Reading section seem to be grouped awkwardly. Also, I know the peer review has suggested trimming down the lead, but it should introduce the subject and summarise the article (even for GA), and I do not think it does the latter at present.
 * If you think any of this is pertinent, I would be happy to have a go at the alterations required. I have not put this on the article talk page, in case this was not what you had in mind with your request. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the comments & please feel free to put on the talk or PR pages. I have been thinking about the multiple use of references (with different page numbers) but I've never got my head around harvnb referencing templates. Your help with sorting out the maps (titles, icons, river Kennet or anything else) would be really appreciated. I don't quite understand the comment re images on the Newbury to Reading section.&mdash; Rod talk 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On my browser, there are two images together at the bottom of the section, which creates quite a bit of white space. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved on up a bit - does that help?&mdash; Rod talk 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have never used harvbn templates either, but use the notation all the time, as the writer of County Lock had done. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revised the book references as you suggested - perhaps you'd take a look? With EdJogg various revisions to the history section have been done, but if you wanted to have a go at the lead (or anything else) that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks much better IMHO, so much less cluttered, although I normally only include surnames, since the real harv template does not use first names. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Following comments above, I have just worked out how to use the Harvnb template. It is great, but sometimes needs the bibliography to be above the refs unless there is a full screen load of stuff below the bottom of the bibliography. Otherwise, clicking the ref cannot scroll the page far enough to make the book appear as the top line of the page. Still not sure about the lead, since it has been trimmed right down as part of the peer review. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to tackle the Harvnb &/or the lead that's fine by me. I've been working on history following lots of (useful) comments at Peer review/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1, so the lead might need to include some of that.&mdash; Rod talk 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed all the book refs to use harvnb. Shall I change all the Images of England ones to use the IoE template? Bob1960evens (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw what you were doing with the book refs - thanks. I'm never sure about the IoE template as I've not seen it used in a way which includes the publish (ie EH) & the title & accessdate - both of which are required before going near FAC - although looking at Template:IoE it does seem to have extra parameters (which require extra work) for title & accessdate but not publisher. What is the advantage?&mdash; Rod talk 17:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The main advantage is it reduces the huge amount of clutter in the text. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly an advantages for the editor but no advantage for the reader? and one extra thing to be challenged on at FAC.&mdash; Rod talk 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no" then. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I said that it would be WP:OWN. If you really think it would be beneficial why not suggest it on the talk page?&mdash; Rod talk 17:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

One further thought.. On Template:K+A-B-B, Template:K+A-B-D, Template:K+A-N-R etc all of the locks seem to be numbered logical & agree with the sources I've seen, but some of the bridges are numbered & some aren't. I also suspect some of the bridges are missing (they may have been demolished or renumbered). Do they have to be a significant (ie major road or rail bridge) to be included? what about some of the more minor (including swing bridges) & how is the criteria judged? Looking at the areas I'm most familiar with B-B & B-D even some A roads seem to be missing. Sorry if this is discussed elsewhere & I've missed it.&mdash; Rod talk 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has been discussed elsewhere. It is a bit of problem, particularly on long canals. If you put all the bridges in, the map is too long, although there are some maps around where every bridge including insignificant footbridges are included. For a canal, I generally limit it to A-roads, motorways and railways, if I start the map, and then include any others that are mentioned specifically in the text. On a short canal, I may well include lesser bridges. On a long one, I may well miss some out, particularly in towns. Looking at Reading, my sources show bridges numbered 5, 4 and 2, and then 8 road bridges and 2 railway bridges before the Thames. Bypasses usually do not have numbers, if they are reasonably new. I also notice that some of the railway bridges are marked "Railway Path", so I think they ought to be in dead railway colour. It's not a very precise science. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been through and moved one or two, numbered and named them where possible, but there are several that have no numbers or names on my sources. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work thank you. I can see the argument for not including small tracks etc. Do you know if there is any logic to the bridge numbering? The specific example I had in mind was on B-D after Sydney Gardens Tunnel we are missing the bridge of the A36 which is quite a major road. In Bradford on Avon we are missing the A363, There is a railway crossing at Hilperton. Also on the B-B map we seem to be missing the A4 at Newbridge on the western edge of Bath and the A3604 and A367 in Bath itself. I am not that familiar with the symbols so some of these may be included but me failing to spot them. I am also less familiar with the canal beyond Devizes, but could try to do it from maps if that would be useful?&mdash; Rod talk 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been brave and attempted to do the bridges on the B-B map & one on B-D - please check I haven't broken anything. Looking again at some other sources the A36 goes over the Sydney Gardens Tunnel & I have no idea whether a symbol exists for a road going over a tunnel.&mdash; Rod talk 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no symbol for road over short tunnel. My maps show both tunnels crossed by parts of the A36. I have constructed the symbol with overlays, putting a road symbol on top of the tunnel symbol. I have also renumbered bridge 192 and named it. It was numbered 194, which is Baptist Chapel Bridge, and is below lock 7. The map is not strictly correct, as bridge 192 is actually above lock 7, and was the cause for the construction of lock 8/9. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continued work on these. Although Pearson doesn't number the bridges on maps, the Collins/Nicholson guide does - so do you want me to add numbers to bridges where they are included, or should I stay out of your way?&mdash; Rod talk 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was getting the names and numbers from Nicholson too, so you might as well add them as you go. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the IoE template now includes a wikilinked English Heritage, which seems to have been added yesterday. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I'll add bridge names/numbers as I get the chance. In the light of that change I have no objections to the IoE template, but still seems like extra work for limited benefit.&mdash; Rod talk 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IoE template seems to have added double full stops after English Heritage.&mdash; Rod talk 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is locked, so I have put a call on the Help Desk. I'll not do any more for now. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IoE template seems to have been fixed. On B-B map Bridge 207, a railway bridge appears to be missing, but I don't know the correct code to add this one (I've been copying & adapting the others).&mdash; Rod talk 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How many bridges do you want? 211 and 210 are already shown, but the Bristol and Bath Railway Path crosses again at 209, 207 and 205, and 200 is part of the same dead railway, but is not officially part of the path. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK re bridges - point taken. Another thought... On Template:K+A-B-B we start with "to Netham Lock and Bristol" (should this be from?) but why do we start with Hanham Lock? The text starts from Avonmouth & attempts to describe Bristol Harbour. I have looked at Template:New Cut, Bristol map & wondered if this should be included or joined in some way? I was also wondering whether B-B or the new cut maps should go on River Avon (Bristol) or the Bristol Harbour articles?&mdash; Rod talk 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a point, just asking a question, re the bridges. I was going to put 209 on for you, and then spotted the rest. On the start of the maps, I think Pigsonthewing produced them in 2007, so I don't know why he chose to start at Hanham. I was tempted to add the lock into the harbour when I was fixing K+A-B-B, but assumed there was some reason for starting at Hanham. The New Cut map is a bit weird, as it tries to ignore the docks, which provide the navigable route. Bristol Docks and the Avon don't seem to have a routemap. I think I would add the locks, Cumberland Basin and the suspension bridge, and leave the rest to the narrative. Shall I do it? Bob1960evens (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could that would be great as you are much more familiar with the symbols etc. NB I will be away for most of the next week (at Glastonbury festival) so will be unable to do anything else on the K&A for a while.&mdash; Rod talk 15:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal FAC
Thanks for your help with this article which is now at FAC. It currently has 4 "supports", however I have a potential problem coming up. I'm going to be on holiday with no internet access from Fri 29 July for at least a week. EdJogg is away as well. I have asked if there is any action I should take, but would you be willing to keep an eye on it and deal with any reviewers comments which arise while I'm away?&mdash; Rod talk 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not previously been involved in a FAC, but will keep an eye on the page mentioned and attempt to resolve any comments that appear. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Manchester Hydraulic Power
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hull new bridge
edit

Can you double check this - as I changed the reference you added - think it the page No.s may be wrong ie - in http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36437#s8 it says " In 1974 a bypass 2 km. long was completed around the north side of Tickton, on the Holderness road, incorporating new bridges over the drain and the river Hull" whereas on p.301-8 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36458 I dind't find as much.Imgaril (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think either set of page numbers will do. On p.301-8 it says "The main road through Tickton crossed the river by Hull bridge and the eastern boundary drain by the small Tickton bridge. Much of the road was replaced by a bypass that was completed north of the village in 1974." Bob1960evens (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I note that the citation linked/links to the "communications" chapter in the Beverley volume -so it makes more sense to use  that page. Though it can easily be fixed if the need arises to link to other chapters too.Imgaril (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs 25 and 64 were identical after this change, so I have named 25 and combined them. I am continuing this discussion of Talk:River Hull. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lagan Canal
Excellent article - well done. I've taken the liberty of nominating it for DYK. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your article on the Logan Canal for DYK and agree with Prioryman's assessment, it's a well written article. However, I have raised a couple of queries about the nomination which you might like to consider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed these issues, so hopefully it will be OK now. Prioryman (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)