User talk:Bob1960evens/Archive2012

DYK for Lagan Canal
The DYK project (nominate) 14:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Four Counties Ring
The DYK project (nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bromford Junction map
Bob, Regarding your canal map Template:Bromford Junction map I am sure that the three locks near Bromford Junction were only ever single locks. Certainly the southern three (near Smethwick Junction) were paired, but now only a single run remains. I don't believe the northern locks were ever paired. Best wishes, Oosoom Talk 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oosoom, thanks for the note. I knew the eastern set were paired, but do not know why I drew the western set paired, as they were originally part of the Wednesbury Canal, I think. I have fixed the map and shown them all as singles now. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nascent Canal Articles
Hi Bob. Thank you for your input. I may not have time to do much work on those stubs for a while so I am more than happy for other folk to make improvements.--Shantavira|feed me 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject
Well done for your recent input at Shannon–Erne Waterway. There is a new WikiProject in development that may be of interest to you: WikiProject Irish Maritime includes inland Irish waterways in its remit. I noticed your comment at the article TP and will see if I can assist. A note at the Wikiproject Talk might also be worthwhile. Keep up the good work. RashersTierney (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have left a note as suggested, and have already spotted a couple of other articles that might warrant a little attention. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hollingworth Lake
I really like what you have added to this article so please excuse my copyediting. It's been on my watchist for a while and it's on my list of places to circumnavigate this summer.J3Mrs (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I just reverted some of your work, but I got an edit conflict, and was not quite sure how best to resolve it. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, just one thing, who retained the water rights? I'm watching this page.J3Mrs (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bow Back Rivers
I have reassessed this for WP:LT as requested. This looks to be approaching GA standard. It would be nice to get a waterways one into our set. --DavidCane (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left some comments on the article's talk page.--DavidCane (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does my suggestion help at all? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 20:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It did. I managed to find some stuff to reference the two paragraphs you mentioned, and the discussion on etymology resulted in a short section on naming, and the discovery that Bow Back Rivers seems to be a very recent name for Stratford Back Rivers, which did not have a collective name before that. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just spotted your new comment on BBR talk page. I'll look at it tomorrow. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It was published in 2001, you're right. Is there any way of showing that it was reprinted 2009 with some updates? Bow is on page 12. It also gives Stratford (p65) as being first recorded in 1177 and derives from Old English straet, meaning street or road, and literally ford. It referred to where the Roman Road to Colchester crossed one of the branches of the Lea, apparently. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 00:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See reply on my page. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 11:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Undoing edits
If you are unhappy with a particular aspect of an edit that I have made please do not do a wholesale revert. When you reverted this edit you removed layout improvements that I had made to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I missed a constructive edit, but this was my first encounter with a situation where an editor had made a raft of edits which has effectively destroyed the navigation system for a whole set of articles. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert Airfield
Thanks for the GAR. Will work on the article over the weekend and hopefully bring it fully up to standard. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're just about there now. See my Q at bottom of Other issues section - that won't take long to fix. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finally managed to find an image to add to the article . Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

BCN Template
Hi Bob. Thank you for your message. The positioning of the template varies from one article to another. There doesn't seem to be any consistency throughout Wikipedia on the positioning of these types of templates and I couldn't find any guidance, but since the purpose of the template is to refer readers to similar topics I thought it would be best placed under the "See also" heading (where this is one). I don't quite see why it's a particular problem with short BCN articles. Suggest we take this to the template talk page if you wish to discuss further.--Shantavira|feed me 07:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for you to move the templates as you see fit. I have only put them in the "see also" section where there is one, which is usually near the bottom anyway. I will ask on the help desk whether there is a general rule for placement, since "see also" seems more logical to me. The other issue is whether to show or hide the template. I changed this to "show" a few months back as I felt that was more helpful to the casual reader; many visitors will simply not see the template contents otherwise. But the usual practice does seem to be to hide the larger templates. Again I'm happy for you to change this. If other editors see it keep changing that might get involved in the debate.--Shantavira|feed me 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know about the autocollapse option. Sounds like a good idea.--Shantavira|feed me 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Smethwick Summit
Me again. I just noticed your edit to Water levels of the Birmingham Canal Navigations. Please note there is a difference in meaning between the original "could still followed, by walking, some 200 years later" i.e. 1790 + 200 = 1990 and "can still be followed, by walking, some 200 years later" which implies the present. There are now industrial estates there and a housing estate so the route can no longer be walked. I've replaced the whole sentence anyway since it's somewhat redundant.--Shantavira|feed me 08:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Back Rivers
The article Bow Back Rivers you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bow Back Rivers for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Melville Hays
Thanks for the review. I have responded on the template. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

PoIgb template parameters
Hi Bob, I know you have used the PoIgb template to show points of interest on canals. There has always been a problem with the use of the display=title parameter when the table is in the collapsed state. This caused the coordinates to be invisible in the title line and is very confusing to the reader, so I have had to remove that capability. All articles have been changed to include a separate Coord template showing the pertinent coordinates so that they are always shown at the top. eg.: where dim is the approximate distance (km} to be shown on the map to best diplay the canal. Sorry to have introduced this discrepancy in the first place. Best Wishes. Oosoom Talk 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I have ever used the display=title parameter, and have generally removed the Coord template from articles which have a POI table, since when you show the coordinates on Google maps, you end up with a nice list of points with sensible names, and one labelled #13 (or whatever), which usually points to the same location as one of the points in the POI table. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment on #13 etc. I will look further into whether these could be given a name with ther coord name= parameter. Oosoom Talk 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does seem to work, although it will ususlly duplicate a point in the table. Any text could be used as the name. Oosoom Talk 09:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Parson Street railway station
I think it's probably ready. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Opinion Needed
Hi, can you give me a second opinion on the New York State Route 178 article which has been nominated for GA status. The things that I need a second opinion on are mentioned on the review page. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look tomorrow. It's 23:52 local time. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN: Bloor–Danforth line
I just wanted to let you know that the Bloor–Danforth line article has been on hold for 7 days and not all the issues have been fixed within the article. If all the suggestions aren't completed by about 4:00 EST, I will be forced to fail the article for GA status.--Dom497 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not forced to fail it, as the seven days is often exceeded where people are actively working on an article, but I think in this case it might be wise to do so. I have fixed most of the issues I highlighted, but my sources for the TTC are somewhat limited, and there are several issues that I cannot fix, and if I was reviewing it, there are still a few issues that I would raise. Still, it is in much better shape than it was. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Longford River
I was lucky enough to discover the Longford River in person and your work on the article really assisted my understanding of its purpose, so thank you! Bigger digger (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing Caistor Canal article
Dear Bob,

I'm new to Wikipedia and having great trouble finding my way around it, so I wonder if you could help me, as you seem to be the main contrbiutor to the Caistor canal article to date. I have exhaustively researched the history of the canal from primary sources. The resulting paper is fully referenced, and published in the Journal of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology No. 44, (which is nominally the 2009 issue although it didn't actually get printed until August 2011). My paper appears to have been used as a source, perhaps indirectly, for some of the information in the Wiki article in its current form. The only thing that I would question is the mention of the originating meeting being called by a "Mr. Hall". I don't recall that, and would be interested to know the source.

I would like to add, or have added, my paper to the sources section of the Wiki article. If you could help or give me guidance I would be very grateful

Yours

ChrisPadley ChrisPadley (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Caistor canal
Bob,

Thanks for your reply. Am I going about replying the right way, by going to your talk page and adding new section? I followed up all Boyes and Russel's sources as far as I could, but could easily have missed some since they didn't provide references for many, although I think I found the important ones the hard way. The only possibiity I can think is that the name Hall appeared in the advertisement for the initial meeting - before a secretary was appointed, but I looked at that. I'll check sometime. Just after my paper was published the British Library local paper online resource was published, and fate being what it is, a search on it threw up some later meetings of the company than I had found on microfilm, taking the company AGMs up to 1857, so I need to get an update in the Journal for one or two things, so I may as well check that one out too. It's encouraging to learn I'm not alone in finding it hard to get started. It might be a while before I dive in properly. I see you list narrow gauge railways among your interests. I've been involved with the Welsh Highland Heritage group. Thank for you advice, and I look forward to trying it out. It's a breakthrough for me just finding out how to communicate.

Chris ChrisPadley (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Itchen Navigation
Hi Bob. Just a quick note to say thanks for the improvements. I live right next to the river (well, about 1/3 mile) and it was an article I started so I'm delighted to see the extra information going in. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Pedro. Thanks. I visited Winchester just over a week ago, and we walked down the Itchen and found parts of the navigation, which sparked my interest. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Pedro's comments - thanks for the hard work you've put in to improving this article. I see on the Hampshire County Council page which you used as a reference that it states "The main railway tunnel beneath Southampton, for example, was originally constructed to house the canal" which is of course complete nonsense. Wrong canal for a start and (if I understand it correctly) the canal tunnel was not suitable for the railway so a new tunnel was built, more or less parallel to the canal tunnel. My reason for mentioning this, is that in the Salisbury and Southampton Canal article, there is little mention of its route through Southampton itself. I created the God's House Tower article in which I have incorporated content from this website. Can you check and, if required, edit the canal section of the God's House Tower article and/or incorporate this in either the Salisbury and Southampton Canal or Andover Canal articles. Sorry to bother you. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hampshire County Council page was already used as a ref when I found the article, but the link was dead, so I found it on the Wayback machine. It is not a very good archived page, and I really wanted a better ref, but have not found anything that says quite the same thing yet. I'll have a look at the God's House Tower in due course. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just managed to buy a copy of "The Bankrupt Canal", so will wait for that to arrive before doing anything. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Bankrupt Canal" has arrived. I have added four paragraphs on the route to Southampton for starters. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dearne and Dove Canal
Hi, can you take a quick look at Dearne and Dove Canal as someone has queried the rise in the locks which is given at 127 yards in the lead by inserting "(feet?)". It appears not to be mentioned in the rest of article and is not referenced. Should it be 127 yards or 127 feet? Thanks Keith D (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Keith, it certainly looks wrong, and 127 feet would give a rise of just over 6 feet per lock, whereas 127 yards would give 18 feet per lock, and rises are normally quoted in feet, not yards. I'll see what I can find out. Although I worked on the article, that bit was not mine, or it would have had a metric equivalent. It was added by User:Joshurtree on 25 August 2005, so I am surprised it has not been spotted sooner. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. User:Joshurtree has not been around for a couple of years. I would have thought that someone would have picked it up by now but there you go. Keith D (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hadfield (1973) p.285 confirms the rise is 127 feet. I've updated the article. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

request for template for Bristol Avon
Hi, I don't know if you have seen the request at Talk:River Avon (Bristol) for a template? You are one of the experts on this so I wondered if you would respond?&mdash; Rod talk 18:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article
.

Good job. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sleaford Navigation
Hi Bob

I like the article on the Sleaford Navigation and I'm not sure if how much you have written.

One point though concerning the locks. I agree that the locks were originally designed to be 60 foot long but were eventually built as 70 foot locks. This was because the Managing Committee of the Navigation realised that the enlargement of the locks on the River Trent was proposed. The Committee therefore decided to increase the length of locks on the Slea by 10 foot to take advantage of the increased size of vessel that would be capable of navigating the Trent.

Steve Hayes (Secretary, Sleaford Navigation Trust) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canal.steve (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, I have written quite a lot of the article. Do you know if the information about the lock sizes is published anywhere, since both Skempton and Boyes & Russell mention that they are 60 x 15 ft? Wikipedia is about verifiability, so without a source, I would not want to alter it. I note that the infobox mentions that the current size is 70ft, and Cumberlidge confirms that. I was hoping that your website might mention it, but sadly that doesn't either. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

lat/long for stamford canal
Regarding coords at top of article: I was referring to  Coord as in

That puts it right at the top, so a reader can click on it and get to a map readily. --Noleander (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It may take you to a map, but sadly you only get one point, and usually don't know if it is one end or the middle of a long feature, nor where the rest of the feature is. If the widget at the top could invoke kml, then I think it would be useful, but as it is, I think not including Coord is a better option. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Chester Canal
Happy Christmas, and thanks for the work you have done on this article, which I expect will be a GA soon. I note that you are linking to the Images of England website. Did you realise that this website is now out of date? It was a Millennium project and is frozen in time in 2000. It has not been updated since then; this means that new listings, delistings, changes in grading, and errors have not been dealt with. The website has been replaced by the National Heritage List for England (NHLE). This contains, in addition to listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, parks and gardens, and more. It is updated, if necessary, daily, so is up to date, and IMO is the most reliable source for heritage material easily available to the reader. I have checked personally with English Heritage that it is frequently updated. The only "problem" is that it does not include photographs, but it does have GRs and maps. It is easy to find the NHLE equivalent by going to the Advance Search page, click on Reference Numbers, put the IoE number in the box, and you will be transferred to the equivalent NHLE page. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I note that there is a NHLE template, similar to the IoE one, but the lack of images is a real shame. However, the NHLE search utility is a bit useless. So for the Chester Canal, for instance, I limited my search to Cheshire on IoE. The NHLE county selector does not include Cheshire, although I did eventually find Cheshire East and Cheshire West And Chester in the District section. The fact that you cannot see the categories you have selected is a bit naff, and searching for Shropshire Union Canal / Bridge did not find any of the three bridges mentioned in the article, so I think I might stick with IoE unless the search engine is improved. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lothian Buses
Could I get you to take a look at the article? I was hitting random pages when I came across it, and a few moments ago discovered that I have been editing it for hours, lol. I just meant to make a change or two, but it became addictive, and I ended up making tick marks on all but (I think) two of your concerns. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)