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)

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 Wikipedia: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;
  1. water-distribution systems—generally consisting of channels, canals, pipes, tunnels, siphons, leats, and bridges-that-carry-water (aka Aqueduct).
  2. bridges that transport water (aka Aqueduct).
     1. 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).
  3. 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

1. water supply channels tend to longer than one kilometre
2. bridges that transport water tend to be less than one kilometre.
   1. bridges holding water for transport tend to be less than one kilometre and wider than two metres.
3. 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)

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)