Talk:Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

message: Was does "end of the 2000s" mean?  2999?  2099? 2009?  HistoryBA 00:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are talking about canal resoration being defiate is a bit hard.Geni 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently the canal is estimated to be opened by 2010, although its very likely to take longer than that Parrot of Doom 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does anyone know who will be doing the construction? Mwahcysl (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The company involved in the construction at Middlewood was Volker Stevin, Chris Marley ltd built the tunnel. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: older comments 

message: If people require images, please go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manchester%2C_Bolton_and_Bury_Canal Parrot of Doom 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I am uncertain if the Gaythorn images are of the MBB Canal, or the Rochdale canal.  Gaythorn street is certainly by the MBB canal, but I have also found references to a Gaythorn/Gaythorne on the Rochdale canal.  I have a feeling that there may be a Gaythorn that no longer exists on modern maps, on the Rochdale canal in the centre of Manchester (near Bugle Street).  Can anybody help? Parrot of Doom 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After cycling down there the other day, I'm pretty certain the Gaythorn images are all of the Rochdale Canal, so I've removed the links. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaythorn 

message: Hi Parrot of Doom. Your linking to the images for each coordinate is somewhat unusual. I have changed the first one, Bury Terminus, to show how it is usually done if you don't want the actual image to appear, i.e., put a colon before the image name inside the double brackets. This allows for backward File links navigation when you look at the image page (image on Wikipedia), or the corresponding check usage tab if the image is on Commons. If you just link the image with [http:...] then there is no way to see where the image is used. If you have a reason for preferring your approach then I'd be interested. By all means put it back, or ask me to, when you have seen it.
I have also moved the kml tag to be just after the tables of coordinates, where it would most easily be associated with them. It has typically gone after the External links section in other articles but this place would seem appropriate here. If you think the coordinates are dominating the article too much then they could be put into collapsed collapsible tables. This approach is used on . Best wishes.  Oosoom Talk to me 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - the reason I did the links that way was because I didn't know how else to do it :)  I tend to figure things out as I go along, so I'll use your example and correct the other links.  I'd very much like a collapseable table especially as I've just done a map template for this canal [Template:Manchester%2C_Bolton_and_Bury_Canal_map].  I feel the article needs much more information of the written variety, the trouble is I don't want to plaguarise anybody else's work.  Parrot of Doom 11:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the Coordinates table collapsed. If you prefer it can have an initial state of un-collapsed.  Oosoom Talk to me 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason it requires 2 clicks to reveal Parrot of Doom 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works with a single click for me. Oosoom Talk to me 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd.  I'm on Firefox (latest version) and it needs 2 clicks.  The 'show' button moves between clicks :/  Parrot of Doom 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image links in Coordinates tables 

message: This section seems too large. Can we get rid of some? For instance I think the links from the 'news' section could be turned into references to scatter throughout the article. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll do that now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I don't think the references for The Times have enough information. They need the author, name of article etc. The is a "cite news" template for this purpose at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Also in the History section it says "A survey by Matthew Fletcher was commissioned by the citizens of Bolton in 1789 to design the purpose, cost, route, and construction of the proposed canal" - I don't see how you can design a purpose. I've looked at the reference for this and there's nothing to support the second half of the sentence anyway. In the history section the term 2s 6d needs some expansion or explanation as most people today would have little idea of what it means. Also, in the Restoration section there is a mention of what the last working party did. The problem with including this is that the sentence would need to be constantly updated as more work is carried out. Richerman (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean about the Times references but unfortunately the newspaper the references were taken from do not include information about the author, no details of such are printed with the articles.  I'm not certain who added the pastscape references but I would imagine 'a purpose' in this context would be a report into what aims the planners had for the canal, to communicate that with investors.  Thanks for pointing that out though, it should be edited.  I had planned to return to the 2s 6d if I could find a convert template for it, but haven't yet succeeded.  As for the working parties, I'm a member of those parties so have no problem updating that information as I go :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean about The Times references. I've added the titles of the articles in so they're easier to find on the page. I've expanded the 2s 6d and wikilinked it, and added the modern equivalent of 12½ new pence so it may be easier to find a conversion template for it now. I've moved some of the images to lose the white space and to illustrate appropriate sections - I hope that's ok. Could I suggest that you move some from the gallery too? The old one of the breach at Nob End could go to the Breaches section, the one of the locks in operation at Nob End would illustrate the Design and Construction section and the map could go in the Present Status section. Galleries do seem to be frowned by reviewers for some reason, and they seem to prefer photos in appropriate sections.Richerman (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References etc. 

message: Hello there,
There's another small collection of free-to-use photographs of the canal here at Flickr. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk   00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I started a Flickr group for the canal and some of those photos are in there :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! I only wish more people would use a Creative Commons licence on Flickr! I would save me a lot of e-mails... and begging. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images (2) 

message: The article's looking a lot better now, there are loads more references. A few small points, there are a few minor occurrences of peacock words such as "interesting", "iconic", and "impressive". Some references are missing references; all that needs to be done it state the website it comes from. I also get the feeling objections will be raised about the size of the external links section. Good luck, whatever happens this is a good article, if not a Good article. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards GA

message: I'm not sure if it is the norm, but is there any chance of moving the canal route template futher down the article and placing a high quality image into the lead? I think this would be more cosmetically appealing thereby enhancing the look of the article for our reader. 
Ideally however (and I remember proposing it a year or so ago for all canals), is there any chance of an infobox being developed along the lines of Template:Infobox River? I think this would look far more proffessional. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk   01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a good idea, I'm away for the weekend now so won't be able to do anything about it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image (or infobox)? 

message: Regarding: In 1939 a half-mile long section in Agecroft was ordered piped by the Ministry of Transport to reduce the risk of bomb damage to the canal affecting the Magnesium Elektron Company’s site., what does the reference actually say, as I understood the reason was to prevent the Luftwaffe using the canal as a landmark to bomb the Magnesium Elektron company site itself. Paypwip (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much that. The book was a library book so I don't have it to hand.Geni 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's currently being rescanned on Google Books so I'd have to go and dig it out of a library too. Paypwip (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In "Owen, David Elystan. Canals to Manchester" he states that the canal was piped to stop the valley from being flooded due to bomb damage.  I guess the only thing these three agree on is that the canal was piped :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hadfield (canals of northwest england) just says the canal was de-watered as a precaution against flooding.Geni 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 Draining at Clifton 

message: Quite good, actually.  Well-referenced, nice job, guys. --Meldshal [Chat] 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second GA Review 

message: Would be nice to get a pic anyone seen a copy?Geni 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen one, although some of the correspondence at GM county record office was sealed with wax - I think the wax had all come off with time though.  I'll have a look around and also ask the canal society, perhaps its still registered with some obscure government office. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 568 of this book would suggest that at least the railway company had a seal. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a copy of the MB&B canal nav & railway seal - will upload a vectorised version of it shortly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: canal company seal

message: With a view to you going for FA I've done some copy editing, I hope it flows better now without having changed the meaning. I changed the lead somewhat as I thought it didn't look very interesting to see an article that started with "The MBBC is a derelict canal" without immediately saying something about the fact that it is being restored. 
Under "Design and construction" the "Costs" section comes in the middle under its own heading , and then a paragraph follows it that doesn't relate to costs at all. IMHO it would be be better if the costs section came at the end. after the main body of the text about design and construction.
Under "Restoration" it says "The Margaret Fletcher tunnel has been completed, and will be formally named on 19 September 2008. Pilings for the tunnel under the railway line have also been completed, allowing tunnelling to continue."
It's not clear from this sentence what the Margaret Fletcher tunnel is for (i.e. what it passes under) or which railway line we're talking about. On first reading it, I couldn't work out why the tunneling needed to continue when the tunnel had already been completed. If it read something like "The new Margaret Fletcher tunnel, which takes the canal under ????  has been completed, and will be formally named on 19 September 2008. Pilings for the tunnel under the ???? railway line at ???? have also been completed, allowing tunnelling to continue. Unfortunately the references don't give you this information as they come from a website written for the members of the canal society who know what's being referred to - so you'll have to help us out a bit here :-) Richerman (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current edition of IWA magazine has something I'll check this evening.Geni 16:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Good spot - the margaret fletcher tunnel runs under the new ring road , the tunnel under the railway is .  I'll try and make it clearer in the article.  Feel free to put the costs bit where you think it works, I'm not seeing the wood for the trees right now as I've done so much on it.
Actually the one bit I really need to fill out more is how the agreement with the LL canal came about, and why it failed, but that requires another trip to't'library. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking a lot better with the changes you've made. although they've opened up that chunk of white space. Hopefully that will reduce if there are any bits added above it. I'm going to be very picky now and say the image of the Mount Sion crane is really nice, (pity about the graffiti)  but it would look so much better if the top of the tree behind wasn't chopped off. It's one of those things you only see after the photo was taken but sadly, it makes the photo look as if it's been cropped at the top. Now, if you were ever up that way again............:-) One other thing that's not too clear. Was the original proposal with the railway line to fill in the canal and put the line over it, or was it always planned to put the railway alongside it? If it was the former, what changed their minds? Richerman (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the proposal was to convert a section of the canal into a line (very likely most of the salford arm), but I do not know why they changed their minds.  The book by Tomlinson may tell more but I don't have a copy handy.  There are two acts of parliament which will probably explain more but its not practical for me to get hold of them.  A quick search (I love google books) revealed ] but I haven't had time to read it.  The picture is a very wide shot, there's no way to frame the tree in without shooting on a fisheye lens (which I don't have).  Its a bendy bit of canal, it may look better in the winter without leaves :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This website http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r031.html supports that, where it says "In 1838 there was opened the Manchester and Bolton, which began life as a scheme for converting the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Navigation Canal into a railway; it was subsequently considered preferable to build a railway more or less parallel with the waterway." so it looks like they saw sense and decided to keep the canal and build the railway alongside it. The google books source says there was an amendment to to the Act to "alter and amend the line of said railway, to make further collateral branches thereto, and for amending the powers and provisions of the Act relating to the said canal and railway." Richerman (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing there was still enough trade to justify keeping the canal, many of the mines were still operational well into the 20th century, and perhaps they were a bit worried about subsidence - damaged tracks may have been much more dangerous than damaged canal.  I have got a few bits and pieces coming so will add more as I find them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of minor problems 

message: :Copyedited by ukexpat (talk), a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed a copy edit of this article and I must say it was a very interesting read - I lived in Manchester for 30 years and rowed on the Irwell (for Agecroft R.C.) so I have a connection to this area. My changes were not extensive and are visible in the two diffs, here and here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edited 

message: I know the schematic is just that - schematic, but shouldn't the junction with Fletchers Canal be shown towards the left of the diagram rather than the right? Paypwip (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite correct, however when building the map I realised the only way to do this would be to widen it by a column and insert it between the Bolton and Salford arms.  I thought it was a bit wide anyway, and didn't want to sacrifice too much space in the article.  It could be reversed to look like the 'salt wharf' icon on the bolton arm. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about shortening the Bolton Arm so it leaves room for the Fletcher Canal? Paypwip (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: How does this look? Paypwip (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better to me!  You should change the template, it makes more sense your way. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Paypwip (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one.  Now I'm going to irritate you by telling you that the dry dock also points the wrong way :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: heh heh - I think the solution is to turn the map around so that it is a 'Y' shape with Bolton top left, Bury top right. I believe this makes more sense anyway as it more closely reflects the geography. Do you agree? I don't want to spend time swapping it around otherwise. Paypwip (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, however the source of water for the canal is the Bury arm - I'd be concerned that putting Bolton alongside it, unless it was much lower than the Bury terminus, might lead some people to wonder from whence the h2o came.  Its a compromise between the navigable start of the canal, which is Salford, and the direction in which water flows, which is from Bury. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic of Junction with Fletchers Canal 

message: I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above.  Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken version added

message: anyone thought about splitting this down
it's way too big and I am using  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.120.197 (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes - you are using what? How long is too long? One of the reasons why it's long is because there are lots of references. Richerman (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: If it had 72 kb of text, it would probably be a little too big, but the 72 kb includes all wikicode, markup, citations, and so on. Featured articles are usually about this big. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  74kb makes it too big 

message: I have a .wmv file of the opening of the canal in Salford (the youtube link is in the external links section) that I'd like to include in the article, I've tried converting it to .ogg format but it doesn't work properly.  Does anyone know a quick and simple way to convert the file, so I can put it onto commons?  Its 55MB so too large for me to host for someone to have a look at. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you try and convert it? Otherwise you might be able to email it to me.Geni 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall, I tried the advice on commons but the programmes were frankly like reading Chinese for me.  I could email it to you, but its 55MB... Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: google mail should allow files that size. The most user friendly way to do it (although it will tend to produce rather poor results) is to use SUPER_(software). Otherwise the converter in VLC media player is fairly straight forward.Geni 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooo I've used VLC for years and never noticed that wizard.  I will give it a go, thanks for the tip. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718192427/http://3401.e-printphoto.co.uk/ben/index.cfm?z=z&y=y&p_id=2014396&c_id=34045&action=view to http://3401.e-printphoto.co.uk/ben/index.cfm?z=z&y=y&p_id=2014396&c_id=34045&action=view
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107033000/http://www.chrismarleycivils.co.uk/projectmiddlewoodlocks.html to http://www.chrismarleycivils.co.uk/projectmiddlewoodlocks.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Manchester Bolton & Bury 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081010144006/http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/society/sales.htm to http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/society/sales.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081010144006/http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/society/sales.htm to http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/society/sales.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manchester Bolton & Bury 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/20090219224837/http://services.salford.gov.uk/udp/chapter_199.html to http://services.salford.gov.uk/udp/chapter_199.html
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) 11:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manchester Bolton & Bury 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/20081002002841/http://www.gmcro.co.uk/ftpfiles/estates/wilton.pdf to http://www.gmcro.co.uk/ftpfiles/estates/wilton.pdf
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) 17:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manchester Bolton & Bury 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/20110517062141/http://www.cottontown.org/page.cfm?pageid=2594&language=eng to http://www.cottontown.org/page.cfm?pageid=2594&language=eng
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) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Manchester Bolton & Bury 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/20080820041000/http://www.boatmuseumsociety.org.uk/report-index.pdf to http://www.boatmuseumsociety.org.uk/report-index.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414204344/http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/canal/bolton.htm to http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/canal/bolton.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002002841/http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/images/att395.doc to http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/images/att395.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518211200/http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/news/bwreport.htm to http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/news/bwreport.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518210811/http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/news/restoration.htm to http://www.mbbcs.org.uk/news/restoration.htm
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) 11:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I question whether the image in the Traffic section is dated correctly in the caption: First, it looks (both in the quality of the image and the subject matter) older than 1968; second, the image data shows no dating at all; and third, the caption in the wlinked article gives a date of "about 1948".  I'm not changing it here because it's an FA and i don't want to mess it up and it has shown this date for some 500 revisions and twelve years and i just don't know the actual date.  I would suggest though that, barring someone here telling me i'm wrong or correcting the date, i will remove the date in a few days.  Happy days, LindsayHello 08:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to return and mention, i did  about a fortnight after the above. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of image