111:- This is very nice. Sorry, but I have bashed the lead around a bit. I have a few queries/comments on the rise/fall column. (i) Are the rise/fall measurements really accurate to 0.1mm? (e.g. "7ft 8 ins (2236.8mm)") (ii) The smallest change is over 1 foot, so perhaps the metre would be a better choice of unit. (185928mm is distinctly odd) (iii) Given that we are going from Bristol to the Thames, would it be possible to say whether the measurement is a "rise" or "fall" in that direction? (iv) Some figures for rise/fall are missing, particularly for the locks on the Avon. --
345:- I've now managed to find all but one of the rise & fall data (the one at Hanham seems to be truly unknown - I'm tempted to go along with a tape measure!!!). As as result I've changed the column width to take account of individual referencing of sources - it does mean that one reference is repeated many times & I can't see any way around this. I'm beginning to wish I'd never put in the rise & fall data I did have.—
155:
footnote can make it clear that it would be the opposite in the other direction. Are you sure there are no ups and downs (valleys, hills) on the way from the global maximum to either end? Good luck with getting the extra data - it must be around somewhere. I seem to remember that you can buy maps of canal routes with locks and falls marked? --
634:
That doesn't deal with the problem that the water is at different levels on either side of the lock (else, why was there ever a lock there?) The only ways I can see to do it would be either to make the canal much deeper above the lock, or the banks much higher below it, both of which seem thoroughly
593:
Thanks for editing the lead. I have removed the other dates because they were confusing - they related to the Avon & Kennet navigations which were opened before the K&A proper between Bath & Newbury. The 90 locks do not include the navigations with 6 & 9 locks which make up the other
252:
I guess the point is whether it goes gradually up to the top and then gradually down the other side, or whether it goes up a bit, then down a bit, then up a bit more to the top, then down a bit, then up a bit, and then down a bit more to the end. Is it really rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall, or
540:
article, they are called
Buckley's (15) and Barrett's (16). I have just noticed that you don't have rise/fall figures for all the entries – which is essential really. Also, since you say the canal goes up to a single peak and down again, it would be interesting to know the total rise from 1..54 and
222:
Reading you are only going up to
Crofton & then down to the Thams. I will continue to search for the missing data, but bought/borrowed the relevant books & maps for a recent holiday (which triggered these articles) & the data for those locks is mssing. I have a couple of contacts I will
127:
Thanks for the comments (& bashing the lead). I did wonder about the units, my source (Pearsons book) gives feet & inches & I converted them. I will redo to meters & remove the mm asap. Rise & fall is a difficult one as it depends on the direction the boat is travelling in. Also
422:
To the best of my knowledge (after extensive library & online searches) & that of everyone I've asked this is not published anywhere. If this list can't reach featured quality without this data & we are not allowed to measure it (not extensive research as far as I can see) how can this
154:
Well, if you have a reference in feet and (integer) inches, you shouldn't really convert to anything with an accuracy greater than 2.5cm. Tenths of a millimetre are much too small! "x.xx m" should be ok, though. As I said, the numbering gives you a direction of travel (Bristol to the Thames). A
544:
re: n-dash. When you edit an article, there should be a box of symbols below the "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." warning. The very first symbol after the word "Insert:" is an n-dash. The next is an m-dash, which is used for open ranges (such as when
475:
I'm glad the accuracy of the metric numbers has been changed, though I'd have gone to just 1 decimal place - it should be more readable. Regardless, I recommend moving the metric value to its own column (removing the need for "m" units), making it right-aligned, and displaying the same number of
33:
I've reformatted this list several times to try to make the data more understandable & added notes & references where necessary. All available data has been included. I know there are still 2 red links which I will be working on but I hope it meets featured list criteria. —
610:
Looks good to me! However, an article on Ufton Lock, explaining when, how and why it was removed (during the 70s restoration I suppose) would be a good addition, if you have the information (I'm left wondering how you go about removing a lock from a canal!).
471:
Why are the Bath Locks handled differently from the other multiple-lock entries (e.g. Semington Locks)? I'd say they should all either be expanded to individual rows (with some entries sharing wikilinks, or using redirects) or else remove the Bath Locks
580:: I added the designer and construction dates from the canal article but no I see that these disagree with dates already in the article. What are the dates in the first paragraph? Also if there are only 90 locks in the canal, why do we list 105?
561:
entries as you suggest (but don't have rise & fall data individually). I am awaiting a call back from BWB for the missing data. I've inserted n-dash, although I can't see any difference, another piece of new style guide for me. —
216:
Units now converted to metres. There are lots of ups and downs (valleys, hills) along the route - this is the whole point of the locks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the "global maximum" comment & having looked at
136:
so everything could be said to be downhill from there. A few on the Avon
Navigation I do not have data for (they are missing in the book) & I've looked around but not yet been able to find this data. —
310:(Continueation the above)... That's correct. From each end canal rises until it reaches the pound between Wootton Top Lock (#54) and Crofton Top Lock (#55). I've added a note to the article accordingly.
523:
are not named individually. I've changed the metric measurements to one decimal place & given them their own column as you suggest. I'm sorry I didn't know what an n-dash is & having looked at
397:, who uses Knowledge (XXG) but doesn't feel confident to edit pages, is looking through their records & if it can't be found has volunteered to climb into the lock with a tape measure!—
594:
15 - however the full canal is named, numbered & administered as one canal. I hoped I had made this clear in notes A & B but perhaps I need to put this in the lead as well? —
477:
362:
Great. You can reduce the reference links by using a "notes" section and/or by collapsing identical references by giving the first use a name - such as <ref name="xxx": -->
447:- I suppose I can't really oppose for the absence of unverifiable information. If it is added, it would be sensible to add a note on how it was obtained. --
47:: Nice list, could you please explain briefly on what a "listed building grade" is so readers won't have to open the main article to get the information? --
370:
681:
created. I have asked Mike
Stevens, whose photo of Ufton Lock you pointed to, and he is willing for some of his photos of the locks to be used. —
625:
Thanks for the support- I will look for info on Ufton Lock, but I'm guessing you just remove the lock gates & leave it as a narrowing —
17:
702:
685:
660:
643:
629:
615:
598:
584:
566:
552:
531:
494:
454:
427:
417:
401:
380:
349:
332:
314:
293:
260:
227:
195:
162:
141:
118:
97:
76:
63:
38:
27:
179:
Yes, I was also wondering about the false precision myself. The solution proposed by ALoan seems to me to be the adequate one. --
407:
699:
657:
640:
366:
183:
85:
51:
386:
221:, I' still being dense :-( Although we have the direction of travel from the numbering Bristol -: -->
192:
94:
60:
385:
Thanks I've reduced the reference list as you suggested (I've also used the same technique on the
695:
678:
653:
636:
394:
218:
129:
325:- sorry, but I can't support this until the list of rise and fall figures is completed. --
649:
558:
550:
537:
516:
508:
492:
451:
414:
377:
329:
257:
188:
180:
159:
115:
90:
82:
56:
48:
581:
520:
133:
507:
on the list. The reason for the difference is that Bath locks are all named whereas
612:
512:
390:
364:- which is reused on second and subsequent occasions - <ref name="xxx" /: -->
691:
546:
504:
488:
448:
411:
374:
326:
311:
254:
156:
112:
545:
specifying the birth/death range in a biography for someone who isn't dead).
682:
626:
595:
563:
528:
424:
398:
346:
290:
224:
138:
73:
35:
289:
Right I think I understand now it's rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall. —
476:
decimal places for every row. I think that could look neater. See the
72:
I've added a note (F) briefly explaining listed building status.— —
524:
541:
fall from 55 to 107. Perhaps you could add this to the lead.
694:- it's more about the former lock than the current site. --
389:
article). You may have to give me a few days for the last (
253:
rise, fall, rise, rise, top, fall, fall, rise, fall. --
648:
To answer my own question - impractical it may be, but
478:
List of Sites of
Special Scientific Interest in Avon
527:don't know how to put one in (help appreciated). —
652:suggests that my first suggestion is correct. --
393:) rise and fall data. A very helpful man from
8:
503:Thanks for your support. I've seperated the
483:The lock number ranges should use an n-dash.
406:I applaud your enthusiasm, but isn't that
371:One-day International cricket hat-tricks
128:the highest point is the summit between
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
7:
410:? Isn't it published anywhere? --
28:Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal
24:
690:Excellent work. I've moved it to
703:15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
686:10:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
661:16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
644:15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
630:13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
616:11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
599:07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
585:23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
567:09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
553:08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
532:20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
495:16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
455:09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
428:10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
418:10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
402:09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
381:13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
350:13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
333:11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
315:16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
294:14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
261:14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
228:13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
196:13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
163:13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
142:12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
119:12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
98:13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
77:18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
64:18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
39:08:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
423:list meet the crtieria???? —
727:
223:try to get more info. —
464:I have a few comments.
387:Kennet and Avon Canal
365:. See, for example,
700:Talk to the driver
679:Site of Ufton Lock
658:Talk to the driver
641:Talk to the driver
367:Dürer's Rhinoceros
536:According to the
408:original research
395:British Waterways
219:Maxima and minima
718:
363:yyy</ref: -->
186:
130:Wootton Top Lock
88:
54:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
677:Stub about the
635:impractical! --
559:Semington Locks
557:I've split the
538:Semington Locks
480:for an example.
184:
86:
52:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
724:
722:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
619:
618:
604:
603:
602:
601:
588:
587:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
542:
498:
497:
486:
485:
484:
481:
473:
466:
465:
458:
457:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
355:
354:
353:
352:
337:
336:
318:
317:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
147:
146:
145:
144:
122:
121:
105:
104:
103:
102:
101:
100:
81:Thank you! --
67:
66:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
723:
704:
701:
697:
696:OpenToppedBus
693:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
662:
659:
655:
654:OpenToppedBus
651:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
637:OpenToppedBus
633:
632:
631:
628:
624:
621:
620:
617:
614:
609:
606:
605:
600:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
583:
579:
576:
568:
565:
560:
556:
555:
554:
551:
548:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
482:
479:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
463:
460:
459:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
442:
429:
426:
421:
420:
419:
416:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
372:
368:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
351:
348:
344:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
334:
331:
328:
324:
320:
319:
316:
313:
309:
295:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
262:
259:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
229:
226:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
197:
194:
190:
187:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
164:
161:
158:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
143:
140:
135:
134:Crofton Locks
131:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
106:
99:
96:
92:
89:
84:
80:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
50:
46:
43:
42:
41:
40:
37:
29:
26:
19:
622:
607:
577:
461:
444:
342:
322:
321:
108:
44:
32:
391:Hanham Lock
373:. HTH. --
692:Ufton Lock
505:Bath Locks
517:Caen Hill
509:Semington
623:Response
613:G Rutter
582:Rmhermen
343:Response
608:Support
578:Comment
521:Crofton
472:detail.
462:Support
445:Support
109:Comment
45:Comment
519:&
452:(Talk)
415:(Talk)
378:(Talk)
330:(Talk)
323:Object
258:(Talk)
160:(Talk)
132:&
116:(Talk)
547:Colin
513:Seend
489:Colin
449:ALoan
412:ALoan
375:ALoan
369:, or
327:ALoan
312:Tompw
255:ALoan
189:Welsh
157:ALoan
113:ALoan
91:Welsh
57:Welsh
16:<
650:this
525:Dash
193:ταλκ
95:ταλκ
61:ταλκ
683:Rod
627:Rod
596:Rod
564:Rod
529:Rod
425:Rod
399:Rod
347:Rod
291:Rod
225:Rod
181:Run
139:Rod
83:Run
74:Rod
49:Run
36:Rod
698:-
656:-
639:-
611:--
515:,
511:,
191:|
93:|
59:|
549:°
491:°
185:e
87:e
53:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.