Talk:Bridgwater and Taunton Canal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBridgwater and Taunton Canal has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Early questions[edit]

Is it possible that Taunton on the River Tone is a corrupted spelling of "Tonetown"? Syd1435 04:43, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Correct 80.42.37.219 12:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Bridgwater and Taunton Canal[edit]

There are a wide range of images of the canal on geograph search which are licensed under creative commons and therefore a selection could be used to illustrate the article. If you click the "Interested in sharing this image" link on any Geograph picture page, it takes you to another page which gives you code that can be pasted directly into Wikimedia Commons. The code includes all the author information, the coordinates and the geograph template. As an example, look at the re-use page for this photo. Scroll down to Wikipedia and you can copy/paste the code directly into the basic upload form on Wikimedia Commons.— Rod talk 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for no Parrett connection[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the reasons there is no connection to the Parrett? The salt water/fresh water wildlife problem does not seem to make much sense. Hardcastle suggests it is to do with silting. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton's Waterways from Taunton & district civic society says "the lock at Bridgwater Docks has been put out of use to prevent silt from the river clogging up the canal".— Rod talk 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition chambers[edit]

Do we have any sources which say what the Demolition chambers under the bridge were for? They are mentioned in the pic caption but not in the text.— Rod talk 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question & added to article.— Rod talk 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservators"?[edit]

First mentioned in the History section, and frequently mentioned thereafter: the mysterious "Conservators" of the River Tone. But who or what are they? Despite their apparent importance to this article we know nothing of their origins, history, scope and influence, so a bit more explantion is needed here.

EdJogg (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details of this legal body added. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; makes more sense now. EdJogg (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent article needed?[edit]

Having browsed Chard Canal I looked at the link to Somerset County Council's page on Canals and Canal Projects. This overview page covers all the canals in the region, many of which were proposed as part of a link between the Bristol and English Channels. It struck me that there was scope at WP for a similar article; one that would place all the other articles in context and give a central point for discussing the issues about why such a canal was needed and why it never happened.

(I don't have the time nor knowledge to do such myself, but thought I would draw the attention of those more closely involved with this article.)

EdJogg (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is covered adequately on Grand Western Canal? I think "the region" would need to be defined as some of the other Canals in Somerset were never intended to connect?— Rod talk 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, that article does seem to cover much of the topic, but could it be considered as 'the' article? What I was thinking might be needed is something that could be used like this: "The Chard Canal was built as part of the proposed Bristol Channel to English Channel navigation(s)...". The new 'parent' article would gather information for all of the schemes into one place, potentially allowing simplification of the sub-articles? I'm working from the fact that many of the articles will need to repeat the explanation for the original need to avoid travel via Land's End; the potential routes, valleys, rivers; original promoters; alternate schemes; general effect of the railways, loss of trade, etc.
That's my gut feeling, which may be misguided, so I leave it to those with greater knowledge of the subject to decide if some kind of parent article is appropriate, and whether existing articles can do the job adequately.
EdJogg (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray?[edit]

Attempting a link for Robert Gray (see 'Construction'), I discovered Robert Gray Sr (bishop), who was Bishop of Bristol between 1827 and 1834 (see List of Bishops of Bristol). Are these the same Robert Gray? The dates would seem appropriate... EdJogg (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell says he was Rev Robert Gray of Buckland Farm, Durston (p28), who later requested a diversion so that the canal did not come so close to his house (the Buckland Farm 'swan's neck'), but gives no more details. A biography of the Bishop puts him in Wearmouth prior to 1827, so I do not think they are the same person. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look further than WP, although I did note that this Bishop had a son who he named Robert as well, and that the son also became a bishop (in South Africa - it's the son that has the WP article!)
It was worth a try. With these articles it's often tricky to know which names to link.
EdJogg (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination[edit]

Following suggestions from others, I am thinking of nominating this article for GA status. Any suggestions for improvements that might help that process gratefully received! Bob1960evens (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very nearly there, but the first comment any GA reviewer might make is thet the lede needs to be expanded to summarise the rest of the article see Wikipedia:Lead section. It probably needs 3ish paragraphs including something on construction, operation, closure & restoration. There are also a few paragraphs which just have a reference at the end (eg 1st paras of precursors, & operation) where the citation may cover all the material but may need to be repeated to show this. The first para of closure is uncited. Despite these comments, I reckon its nearly there.— Rod talk 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First para of closure lost its ref when para was split in two. Now fixed. I'll have a go at the lead asap. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor points -
  1. 3rd para precursors - is "200-ton" Ton, Long ton or Short ton ? presumably not Tonne do we need to clarify this &/or give alt units?
  2. 1st para Construction & 3rd para Precursors "the 1824 Act" should we give title? - same applies to 1832 & 1836 acts & 1837 Bridgwater act & lots of others
  3. Restoration - should we make explicit the "benefits of retaining the canal"?— Rod talk 12:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 'Don't know' and 'Yes'. I did not know which units to use, and hence could not apply the {{convert}} template on my proof-read. Same equally applies to other instances of tonnages mentioned in the text. (NB - for FA, all such figures need references; not sure what position is for GA)
  2. I would say yes. There's likely to be a waiting redlink on one of the pages listing Acts of Parliament.
  3. Yes. I've already modified the sentence after since 'the canal has a future' is implying more than the simple English meaning (which is rather stating the obvious!) Any phrase or term that would not be clear to someone knowing nothing about canals should be explained or, at the very least, linked-to. (This is more applicable for Featured Articles, but is a good habit nonetheless.) I tried to spot these during my proof-read -- it's a tricky task as you have to try to forget everything you know about the subject and read the article from a different point-of-view.
  4. [New] Maunsel/Maunsell locks. One 'L' or two? The map and coords show two, an OS map shows one (on 'Maunsel House' - the locks are not labelled) and ref 4 shows one (although a page accessed from this shows two!!)
  5. [New] Kings Lock/Standards Lock: should these have apostrophes?
EdJogg (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1:25000 OS map shows King's Lock (with apostrophe) and Standards Lock (without) -- the latter is near Standards Barton EdJogg (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked ton to long_ton. Tonne would do, since the number is by nature approximate. Maunsel should only have one 'L'. Haskell does not use apostrophe on either Kings or Standards Lock. Inland Waterways of Great Britain (Cumberlidge) uses Kings with and without in the same article. (And Maunsell and Maunsel in the same article!) Bob1960evens (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. There was a geolocation tag at the top of the article, which I think I have accidentally deleted, but I cannot find it on the older versions. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just had a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/How to write about UK Waterways to ensure this article fulfilled the recommendations, we don't seem to have much about "Describe the cargoes carried, volume of traffic etc.".— Rod talk 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although this would be useful information to include, I don't think its omission would prevent GA-status being awarded. The Wikipedia:Good article criteria state that "[the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic", rather than every aspect (as would be required for FA). If you reckon that the MOS guidelines mentioned on that page have been met, I see no reason why the article cannot be submitted for GA-review "now".
EdJogg (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that none of the issues identified should stop GA status - but perhaps we are working beyond this to FA?. I would suggest Bob1960evens nominate it as he has not been through that process, although of the rest of us could support with any changes suggested by GA reviewers.— Rod talk 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." Are we all done yet, or do we wait a few more days? Bob1960evens (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it— Rod talk 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone for it. Thanks, everyone. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of parliament[edit]

I'm looking for the relevant Acts & have a few queries:

I will keep looking as t is likely that wikipedia list are incomplete.— Rod talk 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priestley's Navigable Rivers and Canals gives
  • 1699 'An Act for making and keeping the River Tone navigable from Bridgewater to Taunton, in the county of Somerset'
  • 1707 'An Act for the more effectual making and keeping the River Tone navigable from Bridgewater to Taunton, in the county of Somerset'
  • 1804 'An Act for explaining and amending Two Acts, passed in the Tenth and Eleventh Years of the Reign of King William the Third and the Sixth of Queen Anne, for making and keeping navigable the River Tone, from Bridgewater to Taunton, in the county of Somerset'
& lots more at B&T has loads more including tonnage rates, but I can't match the names & dates of acts - anyone help?— Rod talk 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the acts of William III have two years mentioned (ie Tenth and Eleventh) but most of them seem to do so at this time. Based on accession in 1689, 1698 would be 10th and 1699 would be 11th. Were they whole years from date of accession, rather than calendar years? The list for 1800 onwards specifically says it is incomplete. www.parliament.uk says: It is normal nowadays to cite all acts of whatever period in accordance with present practice. So variable has the actual numeration of different centuries been, that the regnal year and chapter number printed on any one edition of a Statute may be different from those appearing on other editions of the same item. Finally, wikipedia 1660-1699 says For Acts passed prior to the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793, the year after the Act's name is in accordance with the previous law in which Acts came into effect on the first day of the session in which they were passed, and therefore may be the year before they were actually passed by Parliament. This makes sense. Thus if the River Tone: Navigation Act was passed in 1699 before the summer recess, it would be dated 1698. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1795 Bridgwater Canal Act was for an extension to the Bridgwater Canal near Manchester. The Grand Western and the Bristol and Western were promoted as separate acts, one of which was defeated. I'll remove the note. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Space Walk[edit]

I was going to add a subsection about the Somerset Space Walk, near Maunsel Locks, but I realised that it would make more sense as a standalone article to which I could link from here (and thus maintain the focus of this article). Currently it is under development in my sandbox.

If you have any pictures, these would be welcome as I only have access to the two currently at Geograph: one of the Sun (which is obscured by a bush!) and Jupiter -- I could do to have one of (eg) Earth instead... (The Geograph images are due to be uploaded to Commons soon, but I cannot do so from work any more!)

Also, any text describing the sculptures, beyond what is available in the downloadable pdf leaflet, is hard to come by. If you know what they are made of (for example) then that information would also be useful.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the owner of the pics at Wheeler family or Taunton Daily Photos (according to that site the scale is one in 53,000,000 ). — Rod talk 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for re-finding the Wheeler family site for me. I found it the other day and thought I had noted the URL on my ToDo page but hadn't. From the Wheeler site is a link to a picture of the Pluto statue and the inscription (which includes the scale) is clearly visible. Sending some emails is certainly a good idea. I thought I'd mention the page here so that no-one else duplicated what I was up to!

...some minutes later...

Having now looked at the Taunton Daily Photos page, it is the same Pluto photo as linked from the Wheeler site! The inscription states that the scale is 1:530,000,000, which is consistent with the figures given at Solar system model. If it were 1:53,000,000 (as in the accompanying comment) then the Sun would be about 20m in diameter, and the trail over 60km in length (quite a long walk!) I have added a blog comment to highlight this fact!

What I cannot work out is what they are made of... Is it moulded concrete (the 'milepost lettering' looks cast-in) or carved stone??

EdJogg (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] It's just about done. I need to send some emails to confirm a few details, and then it can go live.
EdJogg (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

I've done an edit & have 2 unresolved queries: in the "Precursors" section, the tons/tonnes conversions look dubious/unhelpful & the £34,145 & £429,990 figures quoted look sufficiently far apart for a check with the original source [which I haven't got] to be desirable. NinetyCharacters (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious/unhelpful conversions? The ratio is about 1.016:1, so 120 tons is 118 tonnes. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The figures are from Priestley, which is on the web (Jim Shead's site), and are confirmed by Haskell. The Bristol section was much longer than the Bridgwater - Taunton section. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on Wikipedia, a tonne is 1000kg, and a long ton is 1016kg, so I think 120 tons is 122 tonnes. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, You're right. 120/122 (or 120/118 as I wrongly put) is not too different from 120/120. I just considered that "Dubious/unhelpful conversion" was a bit too extreme.Pyrotec (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted some of the figures using 1.016:1, but am not sure I like it. 200 ton (203 tonne) implies a precision that was never intended. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I determined the figures using the {{convert}} template, but didn't like the formatting, so entered the text manually instead. I was surprised to find that {{convert}} gave 200 tons = 200 tonnes (try it!) so I think it takes account of the number of trailing zeroes to determine the likely precision of the figure (ie 201 tons will give a much more precise conversion than 200).
That is correct -- see {{convert}} for its 'default rounding' behaviour
I have adjusted the tonnage figures to suit. EdJogg (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should show the figures differently, for example "Trade increased from 90,000 tons/tonnes..." since it is highly improbable that 90,000 is anything other than a rounded figure. Is there any advice in the MOS about this? Usually we are exhorted to give precise figures. Words like 'about'/'around' are frowned upon, but at least they work with these kinds of rounded figures. How then can you show that a conversion such as this is based on an approximation?
EdJogg (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at MOS:CONVERSIONS, there are a number of things that needed doing. For a start, it is permissible to indicate approximate values with a '~' in the bracketed conversion figure (although I think they assume that the text will specify 'approximate' or some such). Secondly, the converted figure should have abbreviated units (except for the first occurrence), and 'tons' ought to say 'long ton' always (although it doesn't read nicely like that, so I haven't changed them here).
I have corrected the text to suit. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. I agree that long ton looks silly, and I have never seen then called long tons anywhere else. Bob1960evens (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discharge to River Parrett[edit]

Something does not look quite right with the ref to the sluice being in the western fringe and near the Bridgwater Canalside Centre. If it is near the Centre, (and it looks to be an obvious place to have a sluice) I think it is the southern fringe. Anyone know which is right? Bob1960evens (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bridgwater and Taunton Canal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    While there is extensive debate on the talk page concerning the use of {{convert}}, the accuracy and look of the template gives a consistent look, that the manual conversions fail to do; for instance if the input is 120, then that presumes an accuracy of two digits, not three. If more accuracy is wanted, this can be done by tweaking the sigfig= syntax in the template.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    All matters check good, so the article is passed. Arsenikk (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BW action against Water Fern on B&TC[edit]

Anyone seen this news release from British Waterways?

British Waterways declares axis of weevil in biological warfare - 4 Aug 2010

They were planning to release these weevils in Maunsel Lock.

EdJogg (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and changes[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong thing to do or the wrong place to mention this but there are a couple of errors in the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal entry in Wikipedia.

The text states that there is "no navigable connection to the River Parett", there is actually a lock which connects the Outer Basin of the docks to the river although the gates are silted up now. Before the NDR bridge was built it was possible for yachts to enter to docks from the Bristol Channel.

The other thing I noticed is the Somerset Space Walk, is it still there? I remember seeing Pluto (?) on the tow path in Bridgwater a few years ago but when I walked it a couple of months ago there is no sign of the stone or the planet.

RustyKnight UK (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text does adequately describe the non-connection to the River Parrett, and the reasons for this. However, it may well be that the description could be enhanced further.
The Somerset Space Walk, or at least the model of Pluto in Taunton, was still present on 17th October, since the photo of this model was taken then. If you think that the model in Bridgwater is missing, please contact Somerset County Council.
-- EdJogg (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridgwater_and_Taunton_Canal&oldid=1206432024"