Talk:Aqueduct (structure)

message: 68.9.107.138 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mathur Aqueduct Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1911 addition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Roman aqueducts 

message: Would a waterslide be considered an aqueduct? Heh. Fredil Yupigo 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. No, that would be a flume.Nankai (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water slide 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions. List of aqueducts. Templates. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Template now exists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: “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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: When I made the above comment, I was thinking of Qanat.  This belongs in an irrigation category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baca - underground aqueduct in Arabian desert 

message: The Israel section was copied directly from a news article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.131.92 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have now removed that section.  There were lots of press reports (all similar), most were post the date that the data was added here - BUT I then found one that was added some 12h earlier, so that confirms a copyvio.  I have annotated the removal with "remove Israel section - blatant copyvio of http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/37097629/, published some 12h before being added here."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Section Copyright Violation? 

message: The line "Archimedes invented the water screw to raise water for use in irrigation of croplands." is unfounded in that, to my knowledge, there is no evidence of the big A inventing the water screw in which it is so famously named after him. Any suggestions on how to word this correctly?
PinothyJ (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence appears out of place unless there is an assertion that the Archimedes screw was used in conjunction with aqueducts. A brief look through sources doesn't suggest any evidence of this. Chris55 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Screw 

message: Aren't aqueducts "powered" (so to speak), by gravity?  Certainly in Rome they were.  Shouldn't this be noted? 98.82.3.6 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the objective is primarily to prevent the water going downhill as little as possible.  There has to be a slight slope, so that the water flows.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of gravity? 

message: I have an issue with the section about Indian aqueducts. It is factually incorrect and should be rewritten. I quote: "The Indian subcontinent is believed to have some of the earliest aqueducts. Evidence can be found at the sites of present day Hampi, Karnataka. The massive aqueducts near river Tungabhadra supplying irrigation water were once 15 miles (24 km) long.[3] The waterways supplied water to royal bath tubs." The Hampi settlement starts out only in 1st century A.D. and aqueducts there were built much later. The aqueduct and dam at the Tungabhadra river was built by a ruler that died in 1399 A.D. (please see from the book cited as reference http://books.google.ca/books?id=_kc3LKI_slEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.152 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian aqueducts inaccurate 

message: I propose that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see above, about halfway up this talk page).Nankai (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy/pasting from an existing article is fine as long as its attributed (easy to fix). "Aqueduct" can refer to non-canal bridges specifically. The Pont du Gard is a bridge, and the bridge itself is generally called an "aqueduct" (eg by UNESCO). Likewise this bridge is an aqueduct, but its not carrying a canal.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *There will always be anomalies as your "Aqueduct bridge", which don't easily fit into one nice box - it's just the nature of the beast - e.g. is Pontcysyllte Aqueduct for boats, or for drinking water? - answer it's both - helping deliver 12 million gallons of water per day to reservoirs some 40 miles away.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *My example isn't an anomaly really, its just an aqueduct (of the bridge type) carrying a non-canal, demonstrating that the word "aqueduct" isn't exclusively used to mean a canal bridge in the UK (though it is the most common meaning). In common with the other bridges mentioned here, it was built to carry a waterway and is called an "aqueduct". The purpose of the waterway each bridge carries is different (and can have multiple uses), but all are still aqueducts. Aqueducts (of the bridge type), regardless of their function, are somewhat distinct from the watercourse variety - so both {bridge, watercourse} and {{canal bridge, non-canal bridge}, watercourse}) are more logical divisions than {canal bridge, everything else}.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal (2)