|WikiProject UK Waterways||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Any objections to my humorous style, here? Did I really need to put the "warning" up from t?NorthernSole 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- It made me laugh, but I'm not sure it's in the Wikipedia style, which tends to be fairly straight. It's also now a little on the long side for what was quite a subtly witty and apparently more-or-less serious article before. If you could bring yourself, I'd suggest a bit of a trim and tone-down, but if not, just leave it and see if anyone else does it! Naturenet | Talk 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the frank comments, I will reconsider ! NorthernSole 09:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No objections to the style from me whatsoever. The word "gongoozle" practically demands an explanation with a humourous bent.
I will be going through the very same Foxton locks mentioned in the article a mere two weeks hence. It would have been a cruel thing to put an innocent, unsuspecting gongoozler in a situation where they could be truly usefull. Now that I understand that advice is free and provided in the third person I'll be sure to listen for these seemingly innocuous comments and heed their advice. It warms my heart that our efforts to negotiate the locks will provide entertainment. We'll also be able to provide the gongoozlers with an opportunity to perform the time honoured ritual of arm waving to demonstrate how the locks work. It's good to be of service. >> S. Whitmore July 2006
Subsequent to my previous entry in, I have come back to Wikipedia to add my comments about my experience of going through the Foxton Locks in August.
Gongoozlers abound at the Foxton Locks, and they do indeed refrain from talking to those people actually going through in the narrow boats. I can also vouch for their disgression. They did not hoot, holler or make fun of the fact that the inexperienced "captain" of our boat spent much time just trying to get into the first lock. At one point it seemed he was trying make the boat fit in sideways.
Eventually the boat straightened out, and the two wives, (I being one of them), grabbed their windlasses and stood in place, waiting to raise or lower paddles on command. No command was forthcoming. No comments were heard from the gongoozlers. I did observe whispering and sympathetic smiles cast in our general direction, but no help was offered. Once we understood that nobody was going to help us, we fitted our windlasses to the pins and started winding. This had the immediate effect of making a Lock Keeper appear out of nowhere to chide us for letting water out when we should be holding it in. The gongoozlers laughed at that point, but surely it was at the Lock Keeper, not us.
So, my experience coroborrates with the description of gongoozlers as outlined in the article. I can also verify that 90% of Lock Labourers are women. The reason for this is not obvious but it may have to do with coordination. My husband did work the lock gates once and he strained a leg muscle doing so. >> S. Whitmore August 2006
Don't change it! It`s amusing, informative and it describes exactly my experience of boating through Bath. The section on the contribution of women to lock passage, i.e. he steers, she toils, is apparently written in stone. I've tried many times to convince my partner to swap, but no...
Look, chaps, it's all very funny, and well done for a witty piece. But it just isn't encyclopaedic. Someone else has now flagged the page as not compliant and I'm afraid I agree. It's a funny piece, but this isn't the place. Now can I invite you to do as Dr Johnson advised all editors to do, "Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage you think is particularly fine, strike it out."? Otherwise someone else may come along and do it for you. Naturenet | Talk 10:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The prior commentator was entirely correct, much of the previous style of this article was quite unsuitable for wikipedia (although I'm amusing myself about the idea of britapedia, for colloqual jolly discussions :P). As such, I've rewritten it to be much more serious in tone and far shorter in length. What we really need now is some references. LinaMishima 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2007-03-14 Automated pywikipediabot message
|This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I note that this article is (kind of) proposed for deletion following its tranwikification. I disagree with this. The article has merit as it stands, includes notable information and is more than a dicdef. Naturenet | Talk 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Naturenet's comments. On this basis any observational hobby should go into wiktionary and out of wikipedia, I am thinking of those listed in the article as examples and I don't think anyone would suggest that these are deleted. Saga City 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)