Talk:Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

older comments

Was does "end of the 2000s" mean? 2999? 2099? 2009? HistoryBA 00:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we are talking about canal resoration being defiate is a bit hard.Geni 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Does anyone know who will be doing the construction? Mwahcysl (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Images

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)

Gaythorn

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)

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)

Image links in Coordinates tables

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 BCN Main Line. Best wishes. Oosoom ^Talk to me 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way it can take a while (days+) for link-backs to appear in Commons Check usage as it runs from a periodic scan of the database. Oosoom ^Talk to me 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

For some reason it requires 2 clicks to reveal Parrot of Doom 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It works with a single click for me. Oosoom ^Talk to me 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

External links

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)

Good idea, I'll do that now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Several sections in this article are well referenced, while others have a significant amount of content that is entirely unreferenced. Please resolve these issues by adding references where appropriate, and then feel free to renominate this article once this is done. Gary King (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References etc.

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)

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)

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)

Images (2)

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)

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)

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)

Towards GA

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)

Image (or infobox)?

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)

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)

WW2 Draining at Clifton

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)

Pretty much that. The book was a library book so I don't have it to hand.Geni 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hadfield (canals of northwest england) just says the canal was de-watered as a precaution against flooding.Geni 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Second GA Review

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

canal company seal

Would be nice to get a pic anyone seen a copy?Geni 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A couple of minor problems

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)

I think the current edition of IWA magazine has something I'll check this evening.Geni 16:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good spot - the margaret fletcher tunnel runs under the new ring road [1], the tunnel under the railway is [2]. 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)

-

I was wondering if the 'canal under restoration' template might be better at the bottom of the page, or on the talk page? It tends to make the top look messy. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [3]] 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)

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)

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)

Copy-edited

 Done

Copyedited by ukexpat (talk), a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Rename?

I have been asked by Paul Hindle of the MBB canal society to consider renaming the article to "Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal" as this is the correct useage of the name. Before I did this I thought I'd just ask here to see what people thought, particularly with regard to the ampersand? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Has that always been the name? I don't think the ampersand is a problem - if the proper name uses the ampersand then so should the article's title. – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is referred to by many names, for instance some of the material I've looked at from the 18th century gives the name currently on the article. Paul should probably be regarded as an expert on the subject (some of his papers are referenced in the article) and I'd tend to go with his view on it, but others may disagree hence the question. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case I have no problem with the rename. If the consensus is to rename, let me know if you need any help with the page move. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with the rename too. The ampersand is only a problem in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not a problem in the article body where it's in the canal's title. Probably obvious, but I thought I'd just say it anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(The original article name discussed was Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal)

But what about the missing comma? Standard grammar would expect a comma between 'Manchester' and 'Bolton', surely? If the official name omits the comma, then there is no reason why the article cannot highlight this fact.

EdJogg (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view there should most definitely be the grammatically correct comma between 'Manchester' and 'Bolton'. Just because historically speaking there has not been a comma doesn't mean that the error shouldn’t finally be put right. It simply means that some careless person in the canal's distant past has omitted a comma which should have been included. After all a comma's job in this situation is to separate one entity (Manchester) from the next (Bolton) for the simple reason that 'Manchester Bolton' is not a single entity at all but two (in plain language it looks daft), therefore it requires a simple comma to keep them apart. This little error finally needs correcting thereby bringing the canal’s name into the 21st century with the long overdue insertion of our little friend the comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.250.123 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Schematic of Junction with Fletchers Canal

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)

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)

What about shortening the Bolton Arm so it leaves room for the Fletcher Canal? Paypwip (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this look? Paypwip (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Done Paypwip (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Restoration - Expand?

Who was Margaret Fletcher? Since the new tunnel was named after her, it seems apprpriate for a sentence to say why.

What is the intention - to re-open the whole canal? If so, what is to be done about the breach and the missing aqueducts, filled-in sections, etc. There are clues in some of the references, but it would be nice if the article was a bit more explicit in this respect. (Quite a surprise that th MBB canal society website doesn't appear to mention this either.)

EdJogg (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

gah, give me a moment! ;) You're right there is enough to justify a separate article. Margaret Fletcher was wife of John Fletcher (who is on the first boat up the restored section and unveils the plaque). She was chairman of the canal society since it's inception and integral to getting funding so a bridge was built over the canal when the new ring road was built. She died a few years back. I could find out what is happening on the next sectino through Windsor bridge, but it would be entirely unreferenced so I'm not sure how to write it. AFAIK nearly all the land has been bought/lease expired/compulsory purchased. I imagine the restored canal will end in Bury (I doubt it will go under the A58 Bolton St though as theres a car dealership there now). Its doubtful that the canal will ever get back over Hall Lane unless an aqueduct is built, which will be pricey as the road is fairly wide. Its almost inconceivable that it will ever get back into Bolton as the A666 St Peter's Way has annihilated any traces of the original Bolton terminus. Unless they took it across the road and along the other side, with some fairly fancy backpumping and new locks. I can't see that happening. The MBB website is slow to update but you have to remember that the society is only a voluntary organisation so these things take time. I'm waiting for the next society newsletter to arrive before I write anything much on the re-opened section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic! I just like to note sub-topics that are lacking depth when I spot such in an article -- hence the comments above -- as I know from experience, structural faults are not always obvious to someone very close to the article. You could make noises in the direction of the Society website to get your references :o) As you have achieved FA status you don't want to spoil that by using unreferenced material, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't more information available out there...

The Fletcher family details I had gleaned from the various Ext Links and the video. I was thinking of adding something like "The tunnel was named after Margaret Fletcher (died 2006) who was Chairman of the Canal Society from its inception, and who was instrumental in securing official support for the restoration project." Well, words to that effect (which I leave to you!) -- one has to be moderately notable to have a civil engineering structure named after one! Alternately, a photo of the memorial plaque would give much of the information without affecting the flow of the text.

Having got this involved with the article, I shall keep an interested eye on the progress of restoration from a distance.

EdJogg (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have about 2 years of society newsletters that would cover the restoration of this part of the canal very well, however I think such an article would also need details of the many cleanups that have been going on the last 20 years, including the Bury Packet and any other boats the society used to clear the rubbish away - for instance they spent a lot of time digging out the canal in the early years. A problem will be the lack of information on how the restoration in future may happen - its very easy to visit the areas concerned and speculate on what they can do but none of that would really be suitable for Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but the circumvention of certain obstacles would require significant investment and planning, which is likely to be reported somewhere in advance. I'm thinking particularly of The Breach, the various aqueducts, and the culverted sections under roads, all of which fundamentally define the limits of navigation on the canal. The only speculation is whether they are going to be replaced or not. It would be useful (for us) if there were some 'statement of intent' from the project partnership to the effect of 'the canal will be restored in its entirety', or whatever...

If you are intending to expand the Restoration section, it might be worth splitting it off as a separate article now (linking from here) since then it will be easier to maintain the featured status of the present article through the lower edit throughput.

EdJogg (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure they've even thought that far ahead. Some obstacles have obvious solutions, such as the culverted part in Radcliffe - demolish the existing road and rebuild the bridge. The breach - that's a biggie, I'm no engineer but perhaps an aqueduct, or a lot of concrete :) The locks are simple enough, they just need rebuilding, but the next stage past Windsor Bridge is rather difficult - theres a road in the way.

I know the society applied for millennium funding through the lottery, but failed. I may be able to get a copy of that report. Paul Hindle has informed me that restoration is likely to be delayed for a while, until the present economic crisis is resolved. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was the figure of £60m which made me think that more detail might be available. (see ref 110) Having looked at that ref, it is not clear where the figure came from. I went to the BWB site and searched for 'bolton' (seemed a good bet!) and found quite a number of references (you might find some of them useful). One (from 2005) quoted a restoration figure of £50m, but again gave no details. The fact that a figure is being bandied about suggests that some evaluation has been undertaken, indeed, none of the articles I have read suggest that the project does not have all the funding in place, nor is failing to press ahead with the work.

I think for this article it would be wise to ascertain where the total cost figure came from, and indicate that further restoration work will depend on the availability of funding from development agencies.

EdJogg (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't remember where it came from. I'll try and find where I got it from, there are all kinds of figures being bandied around. I'm away for the next week or so so unless I can get a decent foreign wifi connection I won't be able to do much. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Theres a bit more here Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

...will be the 200th anniversary of the connection of the canal to the Irwell, and the rest of the waterway network. There isn't a precise date (only a reference to 'locks into river will be completed in November 1808'). I know its newly-promoted but 200 years has to be a worthwhile anniversary to attempt to get it on the front page? In the absence of a precise date, what's the scenario there? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll be needing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, though I'm afraid I can't help you with that one! Not knowing the precise date will not help you, but a bicentenary should....

EdJogg (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolton Arm, Bury Arm, etc

Should these be referred to as 'Arm' or 'arm'? The aqueducts and locks would traditionally be known as Xxxx Aqueduct or Yyy Lock, so should we use 'Zzz Arm' for consistency?

Note that in some cases multiple arms are referred to, and these would be correctly identified as 'arms'.

EdJogg (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. I think 'arm' is an informal term - some sources call them 'branches', other sources refer to each arm of the canal as being a separate canal in its own right. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it as-is. The article is already consistent in its use of 'arm', except in the maps and tables, where, as a title, 'Arm' is more appropriate. Besides, the article reads OK as it is, and the alternative (alliterative) Bury Branch (etc) doesn't sound so good anyway.

Towards the start of the description proper the text describes how the canal was to branch in two. At this point I have added a reference to canal arm (a redirect I've just created!) to ensure the reader equates 'arm' with 'branch'.

The inconsistency elsewhere is easy to find: even the MBB Canal Society webpage includes pages describing the Bury Arm, Bolton Arm, and Salford Arm, but in all cases include a map which is clearly labelled Bury Branch, Bolton Branch, etc

In other instances Arm forms part of the name (as in Wendover Arm Canal, Slough Arm) and hence should be capitalised.

EdJogg (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, feel free to make whatever changes you feel are correct. I'm kind of tied up with other Irwell Valley articles right now, its where I grew up and an area that geographically I know very well, so that's where my Wikipedia focus will be for the future. Personally, I would equate 'branch' with a canal that branches from something bigger. Where it not for the fact that Fletcher's Canal predates the MBB canal, I suppose it could be referred to as a branch. 'Arm' works for me.

One thing I'd really like to get into the article is more about Elton Reservoir - I have been unable to find anything detailed on its construction, the decision taken to purchase the land, the problems leading to that decision - theres nothing I can find, anywhere. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version added

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

74kb makes it too big

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)

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)

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)

Video

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)

How did you try and convert it? Otherwise you might be able to email it to me.Geni 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Dead link

There was a dead link in the article, something to do with google scholar. I'm not sure what it was for or how to update the link so I've removed it. I'm leaving a note here just in case it can/should be replaced. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy these days is to leave dead links in place, in most cases, marking them with {{deadlink}}. The reasons are two-fold: (1) the deadness may only be temporary; (2) keeping the URL visible allows users to hunt for a moved page or look on the Internet Archive.

In this case the link didn't appear to be related to the text, so a deletion was probably in order.

EdJogg (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking. When I come across dead links, I try to replace them with pages from the internet archive. Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of image

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, Lindsay^Hello 08:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to return and mention, i did action this about a fortnight after the above. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)