User talk:Bob1960evens/Archive2010

River Avon (Warwickshire)

I find it hard to believe that you had both read and understood King 2006, before inserting material into the article based on older or derivative works, which it contradicts. Preferring less reliable (e.g. later) sources to more reliable ones (i.e. older or derivative sources) is a form of WP:OR, unless very precise sources are cited as to why the latest source is wrong. Please be more careful in future. PLease also make sure that you read it before altering material on referrnign to lcoks on river Wye in Hereforshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not read King, but from what was written, I cannot see that Hadfield contradicts King. They both seem to suggest that there were pound locks constructed on the river from the ealiest phase. I was merely trying to resolve the "weasel words" tag. Can you please clarify your last sentence, as I am not sure what the River Wye has to do with the subject. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you had read the article, you would see that this is revisionary - that the pound locks were built by Sandys and the single barrier locks added by Yarranton: this is the reverse of what Hadfield wrote. Furthermore, it will be better to cite Hadfield & Norris which is specifically concerned with this waterway, rather than Hadfield's later more general work. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am afraid I do not have a copy of Hadfield & Norris to refer to, so I quoted the later work, because it largely agrees with your position, and makes no claim that particular types of locks were associated with either of the individuals mentioned. He obviously revised his views between the first book and the later one, and an encyclopaedia does not seem to be the place to revive a conflict which was effectively laid to rest 25 years ago.Bob1960evens (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

Thanks for your previous help with River Parrett. I thought I'd let you know it is now up at FAC.— Rod ^talk 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Keith D (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hatfield Chase

Hi Bob, Sorry to take some time getting back to you - only just noticed your comment on my page.

The answer to your question is that most of the rivers shown were before the drainage took place which is why it was interesting. But the map also shows the drainage ditches though as far as I remember one or two are not quite final. So I believe this was copied from a more contemporary map. He didn't give any further details and I couldn't trace him. I was on the Keadby canal or maybe the Don at the time and the informally published work (about 1983 I believe) was in a local library, probably Thorne or Doncaster. I could chase out the title if you wanted. Chris55 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Request - Waterway Map

Hi Bob,
i have landed in your talk page by being impressed by your quality map works. i require a help from you to develop a Indian National Waterway Article. Can you create some sort of basic map / template similar to Template-Buckingham_Arm_map for the above said national waterway with the informations given in following info's. I'm ready to provide you all sort of inputs & sources you require for the map creation. I will be extremly gratefull to you if you are able to provide some basic map template for the waterway. Thank you! Raj6644 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Map of NW-4

Boundary	Description
Northern	A perpendicular line drawn across the Kakinada canal to Jaganadhapuram road bridge located at Kakinada at a distance of 500 meters down stream at 16.941098°N 82.242576°E / 16.941098; 82.242576.
Southern	Junction of East coast highway and Chinnakalwari-Kanagachettikulam road at Kanagachettikulam which is the end point of artificial canal link to Kaluvelly tank located at 12.080047°N 79.83696°E / 12.080047; 79.83696.
Western (River Godavari)	Road bridge at Bhadrachalam across Godavari river at 17.678354°N 80.880423°E / 17.678354; 80.880423.
Western (River Krishna)	Road bridge at Wazirabad across Krishna river at 16.682252°N 79.657309°E / 16.682252; 79.657309.
Eastern (River Godavari)	Dowleswaram Barrage (Sir Arthur Cotton barrage) across river Godavari at Dowleswaram, Rajahmundry at 16.936301°N 81.760383°E / 16.936301; 81.760383
Eastern (River Krishna)	Prakasam barrage across river Godavari at Vijayawada at 16.50665°N 80.605291°E / 16.50665; 80.605291

Talkback

Request Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Bob,
I like to draw your attention regarding few corrections required in NW-4 Template. Please have a look at the post by Srikanth at my talk page. Will be highly pleased if you are able to take up those into NW-4 Template. Thank you. Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

King's Sedgemoor Drain

Following your prompt I've had another look at King's Sedgemoor Drain. Its definitely a B & I've changed it on the talk page, however when checking & formatting web references I found several deadlinks, which need to be fix or replaced etc.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its definitely a problem & they can be left with a deadlink tag which says this was available, but preferably an alternative can sometimes be found as you have done. If they are from a journal etc which a librarian could find they can be left without the URL as long as the full publication details are included. I've spent the last few weeks going through WP Somerset cleanup listing trying to replace deadlinks etc, but I don't have any magic solutions.— Rod ^talk 10:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

River Hull

Just a line of thanks for the work you've done on the River Hull article. You've made a really nice page. We used to go fishing in Barmy Drain when we were kids, and I always wondered exactly what it was that it was draining. Now I know :) The diagram, especially, is excellent. MoreThings (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I am hoping to get the article assessed as a Good Article soon. I have just succeeded with the Aire and Calder Navigation. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, good luck with it. I hope you get it through. It's an impressive list of articles that you're building. MoreThings (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

River Don, South Yorkshire

Just to let you know that I am currently working on expanding the "Bridges over the Don" section in respect of the bridges between Lady's Bridge, Sheffield and Halfpenny Bridge, Tinsley. I intend to add more detail to the associated waterways template to reflect the bridges that I cover in the River Don article. Davebevis (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the bridges. I was struggling to find a ref for the opening of Nursery Street footbridge. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bob, It's strange how a bridge so recently constructed (a) doesn't have a "proper" name and (b) has no electronic record of its construction date. Perhaps there is a "story-board" at the site of the bridge which would tell us more. By the way, I have now completed the expansion of the River Don article and template re the extra bridges. Davebevis (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done on all the bridge info added to the article. However, I am not convinced that every bridge needs to be in its own subsection, as it makes the index at the top huge, which tends to put people off reading what follows, which would be a shame. Have you considered using the '*' to produce a dot, and maybe triple quotes for bold? For example

• Bridge name

If you do not want all the bridges to be in one section, you could perhaps break it into two or three subsections based on geography. Also, WP:MOS suggests that the ref tags should come after the punctuation, so you have: "This is a fact.<ref>ref goes here</ref>" rather than "This is a fact<ref>ref goes here</ref>." It just saves having to change them all later if we want to get a good article assessment. (This probably ought to be on the article talk page, but never mind.) Bob1960evens (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob, Thanks for the advice on footnotes. You are right about the TOC now looking top-heavy. I will investigate the best way of tackling this, eg bold, bullets or TOC limit. Davebevis (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob, Footnotes and TOC now corrected. Thanks for your meticulous work on providing extra or corrected information on individual bridges. Davebevis (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I have posted some further comments on the article talk page. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, the article is looking much better. I have left a couple of notes on the article talk page, about Abyssinia bridge, Borough bridge and references in general. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have solved the Borough Bridge conundrum. Most of the details from the Riverside Cafe Bar refer to the iron footbridge, and not to Borough Bridge itself, I think. I have not altered the article yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob, I had a very brief look at the Furnace Trail leaflet last week and I think that this said that the bullustrade on the iron footbridge (near Borough Bridge) was replaced in the 1920's, implying that the main structure of the bridge is older. This would tie in with your supposition. I have ordered a copy of the leaflet from Kelham Island Museum and will update the "Iron Footbridge" section of the article accordingly, if my memory proves to be right! Davebevis (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob, I think I may have inadvertently undone some of your recent attempt to "reduce over-linking" in the Don / bridges article. While I was adding new "useful" links, I may have re-introduced other, less "useful" ones that you had removed. I bow to your greater experience as a Wiki editor as to what links are "useful". Davebevis (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob, Wikilinks now rationalised as you suggest. I live in Derbyshire, rather than Sheffield, but will follow up your idea about the Upper Don storyboard during a future visit to the City. That won't be any-time-soon if the snow doesn't shift! Davebevis (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A-roads use international icon set

Hi, I wonder if you have a reference for the consensus, decision or style guide for UK waterway articles to use the international icon set for A roads (ugAKRZu instead of ugAROADu) as stated in your recent edit to Template:Cromford Canal map‎? Thanks Scillystuff (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't. I have a number of maps where bridges cross waterways and continue over railways, and since there is no icon set for a red dual-carriageway over a railway, I decided to use the railway road style on the maps I had drawn. Also, many of the A-roads are not dual carriageways, and the icon looks like a dual carriageway to me, whereas the international A-road design is less obviously a dual-carriageway. If you prefer the old style, by all means revert the edit. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no problems with your choice. Your comment appeared declarative, so I was curious as to whether I had missed something on the project pages. Thanks for the explanation. Scillystuff (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deeping Fen bibliography

Not very important matter.

I notice you edited in my weblink to 'A Topographical Dictionary of England' into your booklink on the British History online page. They actually invite you to cite the original book as well as linking to their online copy. it's a more 'primary source' bit of archivists theory.

Rather like I did in Middle Level Commissioners:

{{cite book|series=Victoria County History|title=A History of the County of Huntingdon|editor1-first=William|editor1-last=Page|editor2-first=Granville|editor2-last= Proby|editor3-first= S.|editor3-last= Inskip Ladds|year=1936|pages=249-290,'The Middle Level of the Fens and its reclamation'|volume=3|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66187|accessdate=30 December 2010}}

Page, William; Proby, Granville; Inskip Ladds, S., eds. (1936). A History of the County of Huntingdon. Victoria County History. Vol. 3. pp. 249–290, 'The Middle Level of the Fens and its reclamation'. Retrieved 30 December 2010.

There are still problems with template:cite book used like this. It sort of assumes, here, that a history of the county of huntingdon is the 3rd volume of the series victoria county history, whereas it is the huntingdon book that is in 3 volumes, and the 'series' is more like an imprint. I'm also playing tricks by quoting the subheading along with the page numbers, but I don't want to use Chapter=, because frequently they aren't whole chapters.

I'm debating whether to incorporate a wikilink to Victoria County History but havn't made my mind up if it would actually be useful, or if is over-linking.

anyway, don't want to tell you what to do, but thought I would explain what I do.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to see what is missing here. My original weblink was to a page which summarised various documents relating to Deeping Fen. Your "see online version" addition pointed to the document from which the quotation was taken, which is obviously a better source, so I replaced my original source with your improved source. Looking at the British History Online page, the citation now seems to include all that they suggest (apart from the 'Dearne - Dempleby' bit, which is just a summary of the villages on pages 22-28). Am I missing something? Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It is the publisher=British History Online bit that felt like a secondary attribution rather than a primary one, to me. And their recommended citation does include the pages & subheading.

Incidentally, the one in the library in Lincoln says PUBLISHED BY S. LEWIS AND CO., 87 HATTON GARDEN, LONDON which I might consider adding...

Anyway, happy new year! --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too. I would certainly add the S. Lewis and Co, now we know it. The page numbers are part of the short form ref, because for many books, there are multiple refs referring to different page numbers, and it just keeps the format consistent. Presumably, if there is a proper publisher, there is nowhere for the British History Online to go? Bob1960evens (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the url, but that's pretty good. Not worked out what archiveurl= is - it requires url=. Maybe its for things like the wayback machine?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

archiveurl seems to be a link to web.archive.org, which is the wayback machine. Ref 3 on Stockport Branch Canal used it, and I have just changed ref 5 on the same article to use it, as it was marked as a dead link. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)