Talk:Huddersfield Narrow Canal

message: If you're going to redirect the article Standedge Tunnel to this page, you should mention all four bores of the Standedge Tunnel, not just the Canal one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.26.229 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2004
:I suspect that rediredt will dissapear in the long run however at the moment we don't seem to have any railway enthuiasts who want to right about the other tunnels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 November 2004
:I originally created a new page for the railway tunnels but think a better solution is one page about all of the tunnels so I've merged it together as the Standedge Tunnel. See also Talk:Standedge Tunnel. Adambro 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standedge Tunnel 

message: I removed the images of Aspley Basin and Wakefield Road Bridge as they're on the Huddersfield Broad Canal, not the Huddersfield Narrow Canal, hence I considered them irrelevant to an article on the latter. Richard Harvey restored the images without explanation.
What do other people think about the appropriateness of these images to the page please?
Apologies if I'm not resolving an issue in the correct manner, I've not attempted this before. User:Zin92
Thats not a problem my friend, we all have to start somewhere!  Now with regard to the images:- It would have been better to get consensus on the images appropriateness to the article before deleting them, then I could have advised you in greater detail why they are there.  Having taken, uploaded and placed the images on this article I did so with captions, explaining where they are, as appropriate to the article. You stated that the images are on the Huddersfield Road Canal, There is no Huddersfield Road Canal. Although, Historically the Narrow Canal ended at Lock 1E, behind the current University building, and the Huddersfield Broad Canal started, this is no longer the case.  When the road bridge was rebuilt to withstand modern vehicles, which was a considerable number of years ago, it was contructed with a narrowboat entrance, from the edge facing Aspley Basin.  You will note that, from the photo titled:- Tunnel below Wakefield Road connecting Aspley Basin with the Huddersfield Narrow Canal anything wider than a Narrowboat will not pass through.  This has since come to be accepted as the start of the Narrow Canal. The caption on the second image Aspley Basin, near the junction between the Broad and Narrow canals clearly states its location and in this context is suitable for the article.  You will note that I have also placed other images on the Huddersfield Broad Canal and Turnbridge, Huddersfield articles. To move the images from the Narrow Canal article to the Broad Canal article would make it a bit lopsided at the present time, due to the lack of body text, between the two the images help to give a better picture of the flow of the waterway from one canal to the next. Richard Harvey 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Richard Harvey. Whatever the exact niceties of where the boundary is, in practice Aspley Basin is the junction between the two canals. As such it is perfectly reasonable to include a photograph of it in this article. The nature of the exact boundary can then, if necessary, be described in the text of the article. -- Chris j wood 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your friendly replies - appreciated. Huddersfield Road Canal was a typo; I meant the Huddersfield Broad Canal. Great that we're agreed that the original junction between the HBC and the HNC was lock 1E of the latter. And agreed also that the tunnel below Wakefield Road Bridge only allows Narrowboats to pass, not broad ones. However, personally, I don't buy the argument that the width of the tunnel means that this part of the canal must therefore belong to the Huddersfield Narrow Canal rather than the HBC (supposing the HNC was actually called Huddersfield Canal West and the HBC the Huddersfield Canal East...). I do agree that the generally accepted junction between the HNC is HBC is now taken to be the Wakefield Road Bridge. However it would be good if we could cite some references for that (I went looking on the British Waterways site but couldn't find anything). And I think it will cause confusion if the seeming change in the boundary is not described (eg the Wikipedia page will disagree with several reference books) - as Chris Wood says, maybe we could talk about the change in the text (and unless anybody already has a citation relating to the change, mark it as "citation needed"). Is it possible to add footnotes to image captions? If so, we could perhaps also add a footnote to the captions explaining the change of boundary. Zin92 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the answer is to ensure that the historic junction between the canals, and the modern day re-alignment of the boundaries, is properly described on the pages relating to both canals. Bits of canal being lumped in with other canals happens all the time (see Hall Green Branch for an example)Mayalld 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images should only be of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal? 

message: The junction isn't at Portland Basin (which is where a short branch of the Ashton Canal leaves to make a head-on junction with the Peak Forest Canal
Neither is it at Dukinfield Junction, which is the point just south of the Tame Aqueduct where the PF joins the arm from the Ashton.
The junction is half a mile East immediately at the tail of Lock 1W, Whitelands Basin (aka Donkey Stone Wharf or Ashton Old Wharf)
Mayalld (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Annoyingly I did vaguely know that, but had a quick check at the first couple of sources to hand and couldn't see it mentioned so I assumed I'd been thinking about a different bunch of canals. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junction with the Ashton Canal 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways#A_Pylon   -   I think the wording of the 'pylon' section should be altered in light of this.  Comments?  Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a reword! It is the only occurence on a navigable section. This is the only pylon that canal boats have ever navigated under. It may be that in future there will be such a pylon on the MB&B, but until it has been restored, that is speculation :-) Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Pylon 

message: re the photo captioned: "Approach to eastern Portal of Bates Tunnel from former lock 2E"
I feel that this picture needs some further explanation. Questions that come to my mind are what are the pipes for, and is there enough headroom to get a boat underneath? Looking at the map, that whole area needs some explanation, such as why/when the lock was moved, why two pairs of tunnels (labelled 'portal'). I would hazard a guess that a section about the history and engineering of the restoration of the canal would be in order.Derek Andrews (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole article needs expansion around the restoration, and the gallery pictures need to find a place alongside bits of text. Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Having taken the photo's I can say that yes a narrow boat can get under the 'Pipes'. (When you think about it; it should be obvious, otherwise they would make the canal un-navigable) You will see they are at the top of the concreted walls, whilst the additional photo of the eastern portal of Bates tunnel shows the entrance to be considerably lower than the top of the walls, follow the lines of the white safety fencing. The 'pipes' are actually curved tube braces, installed to add additional strength to the higher side of the canal wall, to prevent it collapsing. The land above it is designated for industrial use. The tunnels were built during restoration, as after the canal was filled in industrial building took place over the area. The Bates tunnel is the former section over which a Mill was extended. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess there is just something about that photo that makes it hard for me to get a sense of scale. Maybe one day we can get a picture of a boat going through there?Derek Andrews (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo explanation 

message: The whole purpose of images is to illustrate and illuminate the content. In my view, relegating all images to a gallery, and leaving the body as dry unillustrated text, doesn't improve the article. I understand that you are trying to create a photo-sequence along the canal, but that wish must take second place to a well illustrated article. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add that we shouldn't have too many pictures in the article. Given the number of pictures that we already have of the eastern end, either the gallery is going to end up hopelessly skewed towards Huddersfield, or is going to be way too big. Mayalld (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there really is a wealth of pictures and information, maybe there should be a second page 'Description of the HNC' which has the route map, a detailed text description of the route today, and inline photos?Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like pictures; I think they add alot of value to articles. Galleries are nearly always discouraged on Wikipedia (and I'm sure there's a convention about this somewhere), but I think we need someway to ensure they don't conflict with other templates and don't overbare the article. Are there any good or featured "canal" articles we could look at for inspiration? --Jza84 |  Talk   19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery or in-line images 

message: Former Lock 2E - if this is now no longer in use, I think a different symbol and caption should be used, maybe the 'Misc. structure' symbol if there is anything to be seen, or a new 'site of former' symbol if all trace has gone, and caption to be a little more specific.
Bates Tunnel East Portal Queen Street South & Bates Tunnel West Portal I mentioned before. This is clear as silt to me. It looks from the photo that there are actually two tunnels here so why the labels 'portal'? Do we also need the name of the road?
Sellars tunnel ditto
:Bates and Selles Tunnels are one tunnel each. I've therefore corrected the Route Map to show two portals each for both Bates and Sellers tunnels not two tunnels each.SalakCop (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lock 2E is complete, as built, though without any gates fitted. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did number all the 'missing' eastern locks, from Aspley Basin through to 31W back in April 2008, prior to going off on a holiday with the intention of doing the western locks on my return. However whilst I was away they were removed by another editor, so I decided not to waste time on the western side and have them removed as well. You can see the original numbering I did here:- Template Edit.
"Sellars Tunnel" on the route map is a mis-spelling. This should be "Sellers" (as in Sellers Engineering) and requires changing. Ref - http://www.huddersfieldcanal.com/restoration/sellerstunnel.htm. JohnB57 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Now done. Similar mis-spelling in body text also corrected.JohnB57 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Route map

message: Hi, please discuss the issue over the presence of a gallery in the article rather than just reverting one another.  Keith D (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Keith, My position on this is as per my edit summaries. The gallery has been on the article for quite a while with no problems and no comments from any editors who are working on the article. Some images have been moved from the gallery to other parts of the article when required for the section being edited. The remaining images remain quite relevant to the article and add to the quality of the article and readers knowledge of the Canal areas. Suddenly and without first suggesting a move Jenuk1985, who has not done any work on the article, removed the gallery. I have reverted the removal on the basis that the gallery of images is small and relevant to the article and that no consensus for its removal was mooted on the talk page as per guidlines on WP:IG, before it was summarily removed. Jenuk1985 feels it is not required. I feel it is and that Jenuk1985 should first query the requirement for the gallery before removing it. as an editor with no involvement with the article that would have been the 'Polite thing to do'. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I admit I did add the original gallery and if you look closer you will see that all but two of the images in the article were taken by me, after first coming across the article in [Revision]! However I don't have any ownership issues and I find that comment offensive! The issue here is the article not the editor who disagrees with your wish to delete everything rather than adapt and improve things. If you read the title descriptions of the images in the gallery you will see that the gallery is not comprised of a collection of 'random' images, but are titled to match what is written in the 'Huddersfield' section and thereby aid a readers understanding of the canal. Accordingly I have moved them into that section to make it easier to follow and merged in my two individual images from that section in the appropriate places as they progress along the canal. Perhaps you can now see why I feel they are relevant to the article? There is an overlapping problem, which became apparent after the canal map template was added to the article, if that template width could be reduced then the page would look a tad better, unfortunately, although I have edited that template with additional locks etc, I do not know how to reduce the width!  NB: The scrolling problem on 1024x760 monitors is usually confined to those using the Google Chrome browser. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery or not

message: Hi. I propose that the Aspley Basin photo be moved to the Huddersfield Broad Canal page. Given that Aspley Basin is the Huddersfield Broad Canal side of both the official and effective junction of the Huddersfield Broad Canal and the Huddersfiueld Narrow Canal. Any objections?Zin92 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections so done.Zin92 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Richard. I left the proposal out there for 12 days rather than a week. I'm not sure of the relevance of the note on your talk page advising that you were away for a while. You also reverted my other change to the HNC page without explanation so I'm restoring this. You also haven't explained why you had to revert the change putting the image on the HBC page so I'm restoring this - this image seem appropriate to the HBC page given the image is of a place on the HBC. I would appreciate comments from other people as to the appropriateness of the image in question to the HNC page - could we not at least replace it with an image which more clearly shows the effective junction? Regards Zin92 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for deleting the additional change to the Image caption, I hadn't spotted that! I suppose in hindsight that the Aspley Basin image could be on each article, as not everyone will look at both articles. There already is an image of the start of the HNC, IE Lock 1E, and that is at the top of the infobox, plus further in the article there is an additional view of Lock 1E from next to the road tunnel, which is next to the image of Aspley Basin, IE the one with trees on the left side and the old canalside crane on the right. That is the view when stood at the opposite end of the tunnel which you expanded the caption to. Or is there something else you had in mind? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Aspley Basin photo to Huddersfield Broad Canal page? 

message: Substituted at 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Huddersfield Narrow 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/20040406053108/http://www.locksdocks.co.uk/ to http://www.locksdocks.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608093843/http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/visitorportal/whattodo/huddsnarrowcanal.asp to http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/visitorportal/whattodo/huddsnarrowcanal.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified