Talk:History of the British canal system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK Waterways Portal
This article is within the scope of the UK Waterways WikiProject.

This is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's canals and navigable rivers. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Merging

There is another article on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? Grunners 12:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: these two articles need merging. Both give valuable info. But which one merges into which? Andy F, Nov 22 2004
I'm not so sure, I think the history works quite well as a seperate article. Grunners 14:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Project proposal

I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now started; see banner, above. Andy Mabbett 10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BW involvement in restoration

The current page says "In the past few decades, many hundreds of miles of abandoned canal have been restored, as British Waterways has come to see the economic and social potential of canalside development."

My feeling is that BW are being given too much credit here. Any comments? How could this be better phrased to acknowledge the vision and work of canal societies and WRG? Derek Andrews 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it may gve too much credit, it should be acknowledged that BW used to actively oppose restoration, and that moving to neutrality, and some degree of support has helped Mayalld 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the real problem that needs to be addressed is, not whether BW has too much or too little credit, it is that the various authors who have contributed to this article have not included all the relevant information that is needed in this section to assess BW's contribution. For instance, there is no mention of the three classes of waterway, particularly Remainder waterways. This needs to be added to the article to provide the whole picture. With a proper understanding of Remainder waterways it becomes much clearer why groups of volunteers and the WRG, to mention only two bodies, were needed to kickstart regeneration. (I think that BW has too much credit, but that is a POV). Pyrotec 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Go to it!Derek Andrews 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of Restoration Section

Apart from the question of how much credit is given to BW, the next paragraph asserts a POV as to the effects of restoration/regeneration on industrial archaeology

Mayalld 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc.

Restoration is also sometimes in conflict with nature, such as great crested newts and bats, as well as other users such as fishers. Derek Andrews 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with the POV in the section, but it isn't WP:NPOV. The section should discuss the impact on industrial archaeology more fully, citing the arguments put forward on all sides as to whether this is, or is not a problem Mayalld 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think this is not the the page to go into too much detail on this issue, but could be moved to an expanded Waterway restoration which could use sections on History and Issues? Derek Andrews 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc".

Please provide a verifiable source for this POV. As far as I can see from the talkpage, one sentence appears to be the reason for the {POV} flag; and that is an unreferenced comment on industrial archaeology. Much of this talkpage, is also based on on unreferenced POV's. Pyrotec 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That is the nature of talk pages! They are a page to express opinions on the article, and aren't required to be NPOV.Mayalld 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that is true, up to a point. However, since a POV flag has been added to the main article, it is not unreasonable to request some verification as to whether the POV has validity. [Sorry I did not intend to put the flag itself on the talkpage].Pyrotec 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand. Validity of a POV isn't at question, and never is in NPOV cases. There are many valid POV that are not NPOV, and we must always seek to balance our own valid POV with the opposing valid POV on the article page, keeping our own unreferenced POV for the talk pages Mayalld 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
From the discussions so far {POV} appears to be the wrong flag, {expand} appears to be more appropriate.Pyrotec 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
{{expand}} might also be relevant, but the basic problem with the section is that it presents an opinion on the effects of restoration on industrial architecture as fact. It could instead cite cases where people have said that restortion was unsympathetic (with references). Mayalld 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This comment is illuminating, as it was not immediately obvious why the {POV} flag was put there. It appears to be in regard to restoration on industrial architecture. Almost the whole article is unreferenced, and further unreferenced material continues to be added. Possibly, the only was forward is to remove unreferenced POV material.Pyrotec 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that whole paragraph should be removed. It is about canalside development, not about the subject of the heading which is restoration.Derek Andrews 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you still delete the whole paragraph if it was moved to a new section, say Canalside Development? You could delete if it chose; you could also add {fact|date=September 2007} (but with double brackets); or, you could edit it to read more to you're satisfaction.Pyrotec 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a section that covers all the uses of canals today: boating, walking, fishing etc. Canalside development would fit in here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Steel/concrete balance beams and hydraulic lock controls (I think) first appeared in the 1960s, they were plentifully by 1973; but I'm not convinced that there were any protests at the time. Birmingham, for instance, demolished very many Victorian buildings in the 1960s and replaced them with (unloved) concrete buildings. We now regard them as ugly, but some buildings of this type are now getting listed. I suspect that possibly some of today's values are getting projected backwards; and being presented as {facts}.Pyrotec 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've attempted a rewrite, which tries to be WP:NPOV, and which expands the section slightly. It isn't referenced yet, but I've added {{fact}} tags to show where I think we need references. I won't de-tag it myself, but if others agree that it is more neutral, can they remove the tag? Mayalld 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this be a useful citation? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1404354,00.htmlDerek Andrews 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

this is really intersting, although it could be more understable and easy to read without too much grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.124 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)