Talk:Kennet and Avon Canal

Kennet and Avon Canal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 24, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 30, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 5, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 18, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
July 28, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Berkshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bristol High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Mid‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article needs census data.

UK Waterways High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:K+A-B-B.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:K+A-B-D.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:K+A-D-N.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:K+A-N-R.

Bruce Tunnel[edit]

I've just added the photo of Bruce Tunnel to Bruce Tunnel - seemed like an appropriate thing to do :o)

However, I am not certain that I have labelled the Eastern/Western portals correctly (the plaque is at the opposite end to the portal pictured, and this is mentioned in the text).

The pictures were sourced from www.geograph.org.uk: portal without plaque, and portal with plaque (this caption labels portal as 'Eastern'). I looked at the features on the pictures (comparing against an OS map), and at the Lat./Long. readings for each, and I think they should be the other way round. Unfortunately it is a good few years since I travelled through the tunnel, and the memory is kinda hazy...

Could someone please confirm whether the plaque is at the eastern or western end? If I am right, GeoGraph needs to be informed, and if I'm wrong, there are a couple of captions that need editing... ...sorry!

EdJogg 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source for the text (and position) of the plaque is Bruce Tunnel but I can't personally confirm which end has the inscribed plaque & which end has the blank one. — Rod ^talk 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "portal with plaque" the sun seems to be shining from the left. This must be south, therefore aren't we looking at the east portal, as in the caption? Old Moonraker 10:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thought had occurred to me too, Moonraker88, I just wanted some slightly more 'concrete' proof. Thankfully, the reference provided by Rod includes definite pictures of both ends, and careful study reveals the answer...
...both pictures are of the SAME end!!

The BWB sign is on the towpath side of the canal: at the eastern end it is on the left, at the western end, the right. Both pictures show the sign on the left, therefore both show the eastern portal. The picture with the boat also shows a new plaque (which I didn't realise was a replica), which was presumably installed sometime during the 13 years that elapsed between the two photos!

EdJogg 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

ON HOLD for 7 days. Lead needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article. Add one paragraph. Other than that, fine article. Rlevse 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead to talk about the course of the canal but other contributions might help to get this article to GA status. — Rod ^talk 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)...Now GA. For further improvements, look for refs in the sections/paragraphs with few or none. Rlevse 15:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, are you sure they were looking at the right article? (Check 'reviewed version'!!)--EdJogg 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The oldid was missing the last digit. I've reinserted it.--Rmky87 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend on route diagram[edit]

I like the route diagrams, but the legend link seems to be incorrect. It seems to be telling me that the canal is a light rail line!. -- Chris j wood 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kennet and Avon Canal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The Newbury to Reading section is entirely uncited.

The last third of Devizes to Newbury is also uncited, even though it contains a claim that obviously needs to be supported: "... it contains one of the oldest operational Watt style beam engines in the world ...".

"Bath Locks mark the divergence of the River Avon and the canal, 600 m south ...". Should be consistent presentation of imperial units first, followed by a metric conversion. Need to check for other examples.

There are several peacock terms like "spectacular", and "impressive". If they're to stay, then who says that the things being described are "impressive"? You? Me?

There is an external link in the second sentence of the Canal today section. External links should only appear in the external links section, not in the body of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in improving this article. I believe all of the issues identified above have been addressed, but if there are any further areas which need development please let us know.— Rod ^talk 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for dealing with my no doubt irritating and unwelcome observations so promptly. I've closed the review as a keep. This is a very nice article, a credit to its editors. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennet & Avon Canal trust dates[edit]

In the "History" section, this article says: "In 1956 the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust successfully petitioned against its legal closure. [...] The Kennet and Avon Canal Trust was formed in the 1960s..." Are these dates correct, and if so, how can the Trust have petitioned against the canal's closure before it was formed? -- AJR | Talk 13:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fix added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sized image[edit]

This edit reduced the size of the route map to the default, whereas MOS:IMAGES suggests: "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), ... may need larger sizes than usual." Views? I'm suggesting a RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be sized, but 800px is excessive, I would think 300px is more appropriate. Plus its location is problematic. It would be better if the map were moved lower down in the article to clear the infobox and TOC. If you really do think it needs to be at 800px then please use the {{Wide image}} template. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this occurred after I added the infobox. I moved it left to reduce the whitespace & another editor (who I had asked for help with fixing bits of infobox layout) then reduced the size. I am planning on expanding the article ( and hence the infobox) over the next week or two (perhaps moving towards FAC), which hopefully will mean the text is as long as the infobox, which would mean it could be put back to the large size and centred. Moving it further down the article and making it larger again would also be an option.— Rod ^talk 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably also mean a longer lead, but in the meantime would moving the map to after history (or the construction sub head of history) in a larger size and centred, satisfy everyone for now?— Rod ^talk 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and re-re-sized it, partly because the interaction with the ToC was poor (not good for a GA article) and partly because I wanted to look at the arrangement using the mobile portal... -- EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This configuration also caters for users with different browser window sizes (think of laptops and/or widescreen monitors) or who routinely enlarge the font size due to poor eyesight. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that image is fine on the mobile portal. OK, so it goes way off to the right of the screen and you have to browse sideways to view it (which means that the whole page is sideways scrollable, but the rest of the actual layout is unaffected) but at least its large enough to get an idea of what you're looking at without having to open the image.

However, there's a MUCH bigger problem with the article on the mobile portal, at least using the Google browser on my Android handset, which is that the route diagrams are discontinuous. Each icon is separated by blank space, and each route map goes on for screens and screens. (The ideal solution is for such maps to be auto-hidden by the Mediawiki software when viewed on a mobile, AND fixed so they display well.) This is beyond the editors here, but is an issue that the users of these templates need to start flagging up and resolving.

EdJogg (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to finish off...the mobile portal display of these templates IGNORES the 'collapse' parameter. The hide/show button is not displayed, and even if the template is set to 'collapse=yes', the template is still shown in full. Therefore we don't have the option of hiding the templates in the article to fix the issues seen in the mobile portal. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting the map. I had never considered images on mobile & similar displays & suspect this issue is wider than this particular article? It did get me thinking that the route diagrams on the right & pictures on the left causes pinching of the text, which may be an issue if this article ever gets as far as FAC. I'm hoping to add prose, which might make the text as long as the route diags, doing away with some of the white space, but would still leave images on the left. A few possible (part) solutions:

Move images to the history etc sections where there are no route diagrams
Make route diag load in collapsed format
Remove route diags completely (do we have any evidence that readers like/use them?

Any thoughts appreciated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has made the map scrollable on a narrow browser window. This is a good move, but unfortunately has no effect on the mobile rendering.

It's only because I now have ready access to an Android phone that I started thinking about the mobile portal. The pages are rendered quite differently:

there is no TOC -- all sections are collapsed with 'Show' buttons -- hence it is important that the text in each section (incl w-links) stands on its own, as there is no guarantee that the reader will have read any preceding section. (This is a useful policy to apply anyway.)

(Perhaps I should clarify: wording must be considered carefully. Don't start a section with 'Therefore...' or 'Following this...', for example. This kind of wording shouldn't get through GAR/FAR anyway.)

images are centred, at a default size, with no wrapped text -- pages where the images are correctly located in amongst the text look much better than those which are 'stacked'. An article with 4 images in the lede alongside the TOC is rendered as a stack of 4 images before any article text is seen! In this article, only the Newbury-Reading section has stacked images, the others look fine. Also, references in the text to images 'to the left', 'right', 'above', etc are meaningless, and such text should be revised
Only the lede text is openly visible without user interaction, hence the importance of an appropriate length lede section, as the user may never read beyond this. (This is also normal policy, but again, the mobile rendering highlights why it's important.)
Templates are shown centred/full-width. Collapsible templates are shown un-collapsed -- some of the navi-templates look terrible -- fortunately they are normally hidden at the bottom of the page
Route templates look awful, with gaps between all the icons (at least in the default Google browser on Android 2.2 (Froyo)) -- they are full screen width and very long!
Apart from a search box at the beginning, all other controls are omitted, along with the categories

You are correct in noting that these issues affect all articles, many much more than this one. (I have made layout changes to some pages where the rendering would be particularly bad.) Considering the very different presentation has taught me many valuable lessons -- in particular, precise screen layout and area of white space is not something you have much control over: if someone uses an extreme (wide or narrow) browser window, or a very large/small font, there's not much you can do to avoid some ugliness. Far more important is to consider how everything relates in context.

In the case of this article, I would not worry about the issues of the route templates. That is probably something that the mediawiki people will have to address. For non-mobile use it may still be appropriate to show them collapsed, if that helps with FAC, but I would certainly not get rid of them.

EdJogg (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I have recoloured the map to better highlight the route of the canal, which in my opinion was very difficult to distinguish given the multiple shades of blue in use. While red might not be to everyone's taste, it certainly makes the route immediately obvious and distinguishes it from the other waterways. If you have a fundamental objection then revert, if you'd rather see a different colour then I'd be happy to do that as it only takes 30 seconds. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template inconsistency[edit]

The Caen Hill locks are clearly illustrated and described in the 'Devizes to Newbury' section, yet they appear in the route template for the previous section ('Bath to Devizes'). This is inconsistent. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The template is right, so the the text and image should indeed be shifted to the "Bath to Devizes" section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've moved the text & pic relating to Caen Hill to the Bath to Devizes section.— Rod ^talk 16:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This got me thinking (& looking). The text about Bath Locks is in "Bath to Devizes" but shown in the template/map on the "Bristol to Bath" section. Should I move this text as well? I'm not sure how the divisions of the template were decided upon and what criteria we should use to decide where the section breaks should fall?— Rod ^talk 16:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bath Locks are in the right template, and the first two paras of the "Bath to Devizes" section (before "In the Avon Valley" ) should be moved up. Seems to work OK. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the text breaks at what seems to be an obvious place: the change from river navigation to canal. Suggest the opposite (and trickier) solution: move the canal, east of "River Avon", from "Bristol to Bath" template to "Bath to Devizes" template. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I agree with EdJogg that we need consistency between the text and the templates, but with Old Moonraker that the logical place for section breaks is the nature of the sections of the waterway. I have asked User:Pigsonthewing to comment as he originally created the templates and may have a rationale for where they are split. We currently use towns/cities as the dividing line but it might work to do "Avon Navigation", "Bath Locks to Summit Pound" "Summit Pound to Kennet" & "Kennet Navigation" as this would follow the structure of the canal. I would really like to get rid of the white space in each section, which is generated by the length of the temaplates & I don't think they yet include all bridges, wharves & other relevant features. What do you think?— Rod ^talk 08:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you., but I have no local knowledge and no view on this matter. Good luck with the changes, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK: done a simple cut-and-paste to move the break, if that's what we've decided. Anyone please help me out by checking them before I post? (This isn't a polite formality: I may have broken something in the process!) Sandbox here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THanks they look fine to me (however I was avoiding this as I'm not very confident with these sorts of templates). Just one thing I spotted. The A4 overpass (Bridge 194) is actually the A36.— Rod ^talk 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road re-named. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B->B and B->D Templates modified as per request on my talk page. (Last seven items moved down to Bath-->Devizes template).

Please check that revised templates are still correct. Should now probably re-name the sections as hinted above. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great thanks to both of you. The only problem I can see is the top of the 2nd template (Bath to Devizes) says "from Bath & Bristol" - I think it should just be from Bristol because it starts in Bath.— Rod ^talk 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bath" removed--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions[edit]

Thanks to everyone for help in improving this article so far. I ahve noticed a couple of items I'd like to remove but wanted to check if anyone had any objections:

In "Canal today" we have a picture of a fisherman. I don't think this adds anything to the readers understanding & I'd like to remove it.
The reference (currently no 68) which says "Booklet 'Crofton Pumping Station' edition 2, printed by ESP Color Ltd in 2001, no explicit publisher or copyright details but believed to be published by the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Obtained from the Crofton Pumping Station in 2004." isn't really verifiable & the claim it is used to support is covered by two other references.

Has anyone any objections to me taking these out?— Rod ^talk 14:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherman pic proves there's fish there? Can safely remove it, I think.

Crofton booklet ref, I thought I had added, but then I looked at my two 'booklets' ("Guided tour of..." and "Story of...") and both of these were published some time before that reference. Neither has an ISBN, but both are 24 pages long, and were published by The Crofton Society and edited by David Harris (pub 1975, reprinted 1982). If the info is sourced separately, might as well lose that ref from here.

EdJogg (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both removed. However I have found approx 6 books which are used as references. I've tagged them with "page needed" templates. If you have any of them & could look up the page numbers that would be great.— Rod ^talk 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol to Bath section comment[edit]

The description of the Floating harbour is done in the wrong order, given that the route of the canal as a whole is west to east. Ideally it should start at Hotwells and finish at Netham lock. Any objections to changing it? --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I'd be happy if you could change it, as long as it still describes the original course of the Avon & New Cut & the difference between them.— Rod ^talk 08:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at rewriting it from Cumberland Basin/Hotwells to Netham, but obviously any further improvements welcome.— Rod ^talk 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thanks. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to FA standard?[edit]

I am aware that one page number is still needed - I've ordered the book from the library, but what else do people think would be needed to get this article to FA standard?— Rod ^talk 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the maps, to use the BS-header, so you get an Edit button, created a new icon for the railway crossing Bruce tunnel, and removed some of the icons where the River Kennet left the navigation. There are many of these, and only five were shown. The one that was above Frounds Bridge marina should have been on the left, and the marina is offline on the river channel here, but I cannot fit it in without making the map wider. I have added the points at which the River Kennet joins the navigation, and also the River Lambourn. I hope that is ok. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avonmouth[edit]

An inline comment has been added suggesting that Avonmouth should be added to the course description before Bristol Harbour. All of the sources I've looked at define the K&A as being Bristol to Reading. Does anyone have alternate views or sources?— Rod ^talk 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, further explanation required. I try to use inline comments for speed where I know the 'lead editor' is watching my contributions -- avoids copying text and formulating questions. Obviously hasn't worked here... :O)

The first paragraph of the "Bristol to Bath" section is a summary. It states "...navigable from its mouth at Avonmouth as far as Pulteney Weir ...", then lists the locks. Fine summary. The next paragraph starts the detailed description and launches straight into "The Floating Harbour in Bristol..." then describes this in some detail (not a criticism). However, it is only by studying the routemap carefully that I can follow the text properly and link it to the first paragraph. (Also, the Floating Harbour is not actually mentioned on the routemap, which makes this harder.) My inline comment was intended to hint that the second paragraph should logically start from Avonmouth.

In response to your query, the Floating Harbour is not part of the K&A either, so I don't see a problem with adding Avonmouth there. I'll give it a go and you can see what you think.

EdJogg (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK a second time. In trying to resolve this I think I have seen the problem. The whole 'Floating Harbour' paragraph is out of place, or rather, it just doesn't belong. It completely obscures the actual start of the canal. This will require a radical edit, but this will also remove the problematic phrase "...the harbour leaves the original route of the Avon and travels along..." -- the harbour cannot 'travel'! (Also, the harbour has its own article which can be reached by wikilink.)

As I said in my previous comment, I'll give it a go and you can see what you think...you can always revert if I've gone too far.

EdJogg (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Try that. There is the 'slight' problem that the text is now shorter than the routemap on my 1024x768 monitor, but if you view the page with a full-screen browser on a modern wide-screen monitor it'll look as silly as every other page on WP, highlighting the fact that precise screen layout is nothing to worry about!

I have commented-out the section about Bickley Wood, as this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the canal, and again obscures the start of the canal description. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I misread your inline comment as suggesting the K&A started at Avonmouth. The bit about Bristol Harbour has always been problematic as it was previously described in the opposite direction to the rest of the article & I had tried to reverse this which probably introduced the "travels along". Lets wait & see what reviewers say. We can always expand the harbour bit again if requested.— Rod ^talk 07:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was only trying to suggest the paragraph started at Avonmouth, not the canal :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bath-Devizes queries[edit]

Bath Locks[edit]

Bath Locks appear (from satellite imagery) to be two groups of three closely-spaced locks. It would be nice to add, to the Bath-Devizes section, details of the distance between Bath Bottom Lock and Bath Top Lock, and the total rise/fall over this distance. It also looks like Bath Deep Lock was constructed to negotiate one or two road crossings (including the A36). We mention that it replaced two locks, but give no reason why. Naturally, this information should also be added to the Bath Locks article.

BTW the reference for the Deep Lock being the deepest differs between here and its own article, where a list shows it as the second deepest. I have revised the text but not changed the reference. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has introduced a bit of a problem. Allsop p21 (which is used as the cite) says "Britain's deepest canal lock", but it is now being used to support "The new chamber has a depth of 19 feet 5 inches (5.92 metres), making it Britain's second deepest canal lock" which the ref doesn't say. The ref cited on Bath Locks, shows Tuel Lane Lock as the deepest lock, but says this is "new" (without dates). I suspect Tuel Lane has been built since the Allsop book was published, so a phrase such as "Bath Deep Lock was the deepest in England when it was built" may be appropriate, however I don't have a source to support that.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 'record breakers' page at Waterscape, which helpfully mentions both locks, so that should do as a reference for all three articles. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems OK to use - will you do it or shall I? NB Collins/Nicholson (2006 ed) p61 says "This [Bath Deep Lock] now vies with Tuel Deep Lock, on the Rochdale Canal, for deepest lock on the navigable waterways system."— Rod ^talk 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's Folly[edit]

There is a big chunk of text which is duplicated in the Brown's Folly article, and which is only tangentially related to the canal. As far as I can make out, the Folly (etc) overlooks the canal, but has no other connection with it. I think the section could be removed as it is distracting in the middle of a description of the canal. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed this as a single edit, which makes it easier to revert if appropriate. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C14th Tithe Barn(s), Bradford on Avon[edit]

There would appear to be two 14th century tithe barns near the canal to the west of Bradford, with two references to support this. Is this actually one tithe barn? If so, the sentence containing the second mention could be quietly dropped, and the reference moved. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one barn. I have removed the second mention as suggested.— Rod ^talk 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semington/Seend[edit]

"Further east the canal is carried by an aqueduct over the River Biss and a series of swing bridges, and locks at Semington and Seend, where water flows into the canal from the Summerham Brook, otherwise known as the Seend Feeder."

This sentence could be expanded into several. The routemap doesn't show any swing bridges, but it does show five aqueducts (only one of which is mentioned) and fails to note that there are 3 locks at Semington, and a flight of 5 at Seend. Also the 'Seend Feeder' s not shown on the routemap. Compared to earlier paragraphs, the level of detail here is inconsistent. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the sentence into 2. Swing bridges (and other minor roads/tracks which cross the canal) are not included as there are dozens (possibly over 100) and this would make the maps ridiculously long. The map does show a lock symbol & "15-16 Semington locks" and then "17-21 Seend Locks (flight of 5)". Re: Summerham Brook/Seend Feeder - this is shown as "Summerham Aqueduct" however I would agree it is not clear from the map that water enters the canal from this source. I don't know how to indicate this on the map.— Rod ^talk 16:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I may revisit this later. We cannot rely on a user being able to cross-refer to the routemap: they may be using a screenreader (don't know how that will work with the routemaps!), may have turned off images, or may be using the mobile portal, where images are positioned differently to the conventional page layout. (Actually, they'd give up trying to read this page on a mobile as the long routemaps would require the user to scroll for ages to find any text!) Hence the text should be self-contained.

Do we know how many swing bridges there are on the canal? Don't have a problem that they are not on the routemap, except that they were singled-out here. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific figure for swing bridges but there are lots. Collins/Nicholson numbers the bridges with the highest number given being 213. This includes lots of swing bridges but also small fixed bridges for tracks/footpaths as well as roads. The numbering system (I don't know the origin but many of the bridges on the canal have an oval "plaque" with the number on) doesn't include recent bridges eg for town bypasses etc (I'm guessing those built after WWII). There is no way this article should/could include mention of them all, either in the text or the route diagrams.— Rod ^talk 08:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists over 20 swing bridges.— Rod ^talk 08:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caen Hill[edit]

I have completely reordered this paragraph several times. I think it all makes sense, but this needs checking! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devizes to Newbury queries[edit]

Bristol Pennant Limestone[edit]

I just tried to wikilink 'Bristol pennant limestone' (in place of linking 'Bristol' and 'limestone', neither of which is helpful here!). It created a redlink. A search for 'pennant limestone' revealed two obvious instances, here, and in the Bruce Tunnel article itself. It also revealed Pennant Sandstone (note the capitals), so I'm wondering if there has been a transcription error somewhere? -- EdJogg (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pennant sandstone was one of the main building stones in the Bristol area" reports Peter Scott of the Royal Geological Society (ISBN 1862390991, page 364). That seems to be the one to go with, linked as above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikilinked as suggested.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase probably originated on this website (linked from Bruce Tunnel), but I have Googled other instances too. This is part of the Bristol Local Plan, and it mentions:

"(5) Predominant materials in the area are characterised by the use of lias and pennant limestone rubble and render."

I have also found several churches mentioning use of 'pennant limestone', such as this one in Wales:

"The texture of the Pennant limestone and random rubble walling contrasts well with the Bath stone dressings and Welsh slate roof."

So, we now have a bit of a dilemma. Is there such a thing as "pennant limestone", and if so, is it different to Pennant Sandstone? Where should it link? Is there a special form found in Bristol? Maybe a question for the Geology WikiProject? -- EdJogg (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much help, but I didn't find "Pennant limestone" in any volume with a geological basis, only "Pennant Sandstone" (often capitalized thus, BTW, as in the WP article). --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated Bruce Tunnel article linking to match, and asked a question at WikiProject Geology -- EdJogg (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quick response from them, led to discovery of an English Heritage thesaurus entry which notes Pennant stone (new redirect created by me) as a sandstone quarried in the Bristol and South Wales area. The two Bruce Tunnel refs therefore need revising (with a footnote added to explain the difference from the source site). -- EdJogg (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused. What is the link to the EH thesaurus? In "Bristol to Bath" we have "Millstone Grit, Pennant Sandstone, flint, and chert clasts." with a reference & then in "Devizes to Newbury" we have "a decorative stone plaque of Bristol Pennant Limestone." Is the consensus that both should be wikilinked to Pennant stone which then redirects to Pennant Measures?— Rod ^talk 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, busy off-wiki.

I think the consensus is that we should use a link to Pennant stone. (This should link to Pennant Sandstone, but we are not allowed double redirects, so the current redirect is unhelpful. Also, don't know if it should be 'stone' or 'Stone'.)

Although the reference quotes limestone, I think we are safer calling it 'Bristol Pennant Stone'.

Does that help? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennant Stone, Bristol Pennant, Pennant Sandstone, Pennant Measures - these are all the same thing. Anyone who lives in or visits Bristol will be familiar with the stone - even if you don't know what it is called. Most recently it has been used extensively as paving at the new Cabot Circus shopping centre. This is an interesting insight into quarrying the stone in Bristol. Just link to Pennant Measures, redirecting it to pennant stone. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A simple link to Pennant Measures seems all right to me. Perhaps someone needs to edit that page with the explanation of different stuff mined around Bristol?— Rod ^talk 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are those coords accurate?[edit]

The coords I see seem to point to the middle of near-by woods. I see what looks like a navigation a bit to the west. - Denimadept (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they were off. They'd only been done to the nearest minute so I think that's as close as you could get. For an initial fix, I have changed them to {{Coord|51|22|30|N|2|18|8|W}} which places it right on the canal, just a little S of Claverton pumping station. (The previous version was {{Coord|51|22|N|2|18|W}}.) Do you think that's a bit better, at least for a start?

Two points (hoho, no pun intended) occur to me: (1) what's the best point to take to represent something 87 miles long? I mean, is it Just Somewhere On The Canal™, or do we try for something that is particularly representative (e.g. Caen Hill, some other locks, the summit, Bruce Tunnel, the halfway point, a pumping station, a settlement?) or what ... is there a project guideline on this somewhere? Also (2) it's slightly annoying that editing the coords you can get it to what seem all lovely and accurate then when you look at it with Streetmap OS it's a touch off, because their arrow is actually on the co-ordinate (I think) so it is pointing to a spot a little off. If I'm right, there's nothing to be done about this unless you are dealing with a place where the lie of the land gives you enough space for both to work ... but it's a little annoying. Ho hum. Maybe this too is also discussed elsewhere, or I am missing the point as usual. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OMG - So I say blithely "is there a project guideline on this somewhere?" apropos of coordinates for a canal - turns out there's been horrendous historic battles around this general area. I am stopping to think before addressing this any further - possibly stopping permanently! DBaK (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'll take a lot of precision, but the various mapping sites can be a little different. - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a draft guideline at WP:LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Wiki Meetup[edit]

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

Bristol (Day 1-3)
Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
Devon (Day 7-9)
Dorset (Day 10-12)
Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
Somerset (Day 16-18)
Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 15:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kennet and Avon 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) 08:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennet and Avon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925021135/http://www.ipresent.co.uk/KA3.HTM to http://www.ipresent.co.uk/KA3.HTM

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) 08:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennet and Avon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004093851/http://www.canalplan.org.uk/cgi-bin/gazetteer.cgi?id=1i10 to http://www.canalplan.org.uk/cgi-bin/gazetteer.cgi?id=1i10

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) 10:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennet and Avon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224023124/http://www.wiltshirebirds.co.uk/where-to-watch/wiltshire-birding-sites/ to http://www.wiltshirebirds.co.uk/where-to-watch/wiltshire-birding-sites/

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) 19:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kennet and Avon 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) 21:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kennet and Avon 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) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kennet and Avon 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) 14:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennet and Avon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623020045/http://www.dwrace.org.uk/overview.html to http://www.dwrace.org.uk/overview.html

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) 13:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]