Talk:Huddersfield Narrow Canal

Standedge Tunnel

If you're going to redirect the article Standedge Tunnel to this page, you should mention all four bores of the Standedge Tunnel, not just the Canal one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.26.229 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2004

I suspect that rediredt will dissapear in the long run however at the moment we don't seem to have any railway enthuiasts who want to right about the other tunnels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 November 2004

I originally created a new page for the railway tunnels but think a better solution is one page about all of the tunnels so I've merged it together as the Standedge Tunnel. See also Talk:Standedge Tunnel. Adambro 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Electricity Pylon

Where is the electricity pylon under which Huddersfield Narrow Canal runs? (Picture on http://www.gorge.org/pylons/page1.shtml ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.16.151 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 June 2005

It is near Stalybridge, walk towards Huddersfield from Tescos in Stalybridge for about a mile and you will see it. I've added a photo of it on the site. Huddersfield_Narrow_Canal_Pylon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain4724 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 December 2005

Images should only be of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal?

I removed the images of Aspley Basin and Wakefield Road Bridge as they're on the Huddersfield Broad Canal, not the Huddersfield Narrow Canal, hence I considered them irrelevant to an article on the latter. Richard Harvey restored the images without explanation.

What do other people think about the appropriateness of these images to the page please?

Apologies if I'm not resolving an issue in the correct manner, I've not attempted this before. User:Zin92

Thats not a problem my friend, we all have to start somewhere! Now with regard to the images:- It would have been better to get consensus on the images appropriateness to the article before deleting them, then I could have advised you in greater detail why they are there. Having taken, uploaded and placed the images on this article I did so with captions, explaining where they are, as appropriate to the article. You stated that the images are on the Huddersfield Road Canal, There is no Huddersfield Road Canal. Although, Historically the Narrow Canal ended at Lock 1E, behind the current University building, and the Huddersfield Broad Canal started, this is no longer the case. When the road bridge was rebuilt to withstand modern vehicles, which was a considerable number of years ago, it was contructed with a narrowboat entrance, from the edge facing Aspley Basin. You will note that, from the photo titled:- Tunnel below Wakefield Road connecting Aspley Basin with the Huddersfield Narrow Canal anything wider than a Narrowboat will not pass through. This has since come to be accepted as the start of the Narrow Canal. The caption on the second image Aspley Basin, near the junction between the Broad and Narrow canals clearly states its location and in this context is suitable for the article. You will note that I have also placed other images on the Huddersfield Broad Canal and Turnbridge, Huddersfield articles. To move the images from the Narrow Canal article to the Broad Canal article would make it a bit lopsided at the present time, due to the lack of body text, between the two the images help to give a better picture of the flow of the waterway from one canal to the next. Richard Harvey 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Harvey. Whatever the exact niceties of where the boundary is, in practice Aspley Basin is the junction between the two canals. As such it is perfectly reasonable to include a photograph of it in this article. The nature of the exact boundary can then, if necessary, be described in the text of the article. -- Chris j wood 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly replies - appreciated. Huddersfield Road Canal was a typo; I meant the Huddersfield Broad Canal. Great that we're agreed that the original junction between the HBC and the HNC was lock 1E of the latter. And agreed also that the tunnel below Wakefield Road Bridge only allows Narrowboats to pass, not broad ones. However, personally, I don't buy the argument that the width of the tunnel means that this part of the canal must therefore belong to the Huddersfield Narrow Canal rather than the HBC (supposing the HNC was actually called Huddersfield Canal West and the HBC the Huddersfield Canal East...). I do agree that the generally accepted junction between the HNC is HBC is now taken to be the Wakefield Road Bridge. However it would be good if we could cite some references for that (I went looking on the British Waterways site but couldn't find anything). And I think it will cause confusion if the seeming change in the boundary is not described (eg the Wikipedia page will disagree with several reference books) - as Chris Wood says, maybe we could talk about the change in the text (and unless anybody already has a citation relating to the change, mark it as "citation needed"). Is it possible to add footnotes to image captions? If so, we could perhaps also add a footnote to the captions explaining the change of boundary. Zin92 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely the answer is to ensure that the historic junction between the canals, and the modern day re-alignment of the boundaries, is properly described on the pages relating to both canals. Bits of canal being lumped in with other canals happens all the time (see Hall Green Branch for an example)Mayalld 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

canals in Oldham

Notice that the category had been removed.

However, this looks like a misunderstanding to me.

Canals in Oldham (like Canals in Tameside) refers to the Metropolitan Borough, rather than the town, and the canal IS in Oldham MB

Restoring the category

Junction with the Ashton Canal

The junction isn't at Portland Basin (which is where a short branch of the Ashton Canal leaves to make a head-on junction with the Peak Forest Canal

Neither is it at Dukinfield Junction, which is the point just south of the Tame Aqueduct where the PF joins the arm from the Ashton.

The junction is half a mile East immediately at the tail of Lock 1W, Whitelands Basin (aka Donkey Stone Wharf or Ashton Old Wharf)

Mayalld (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Annoyingly I did vaguely know that, but had a quick check at the first couple of sources to hand and couldn't see it mentioned so I assumed I'd been thinking about a different bunch of canals. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A Pylon

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways#A_Pylon - I think the wording of the 'pylon' section should be altered in light of this. Comments? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs a reword! It is the only occurence on a navigable section. This is the only pylon that canal boats have ever navigated under. It may be that in future there will be such a pylon on the MB&B, but until it has been restored, that is speculation :-) Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo explanation

re the photo captioned: "Approach to eastern Portal of Bates Tunnel from former lock 2E"

I feel that this picture needs some further explanation. Questions that come to my mind are what are the pipes for, and is there enough headroom to get a boat underneath? Looking at the map, that whole area needs some explanation, such as why/when the lock was moved, why two pairs of tunnels (labelled 'portal'). I would hazard a guess that a section about the history and engineering of the restoration of the canal would be in order.Derek Andrews (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs expansion around the restoration, and the gallery pictures need to find a place alongside bits of text. Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Having taken the photo's I can say that yes a narrow boat can get under the 'Pipes'. (When you think about it; it should be obvious, otherwise they would make the canal un-navigable) You will see they are at the top of the concreted walls, whilst the additional photo of the eastern portal of Bates tunnel shows the entrance to be considerably lower than the top of the walls, follow the lines of the white safety fencing. The 'pipes' are actually curved tube braces, installed to add additional strength to the higher side of the canal wall, to prevent it collapsing. The land above it is designated for industrial use. The tunnels were built during restoration, as after the canal was filled in industrial building took place over the area. The Bates tunnel is the former section over which a Mill was extended. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess there is just something about that photo that makes it hard for me to get a sense of scale. Maybe one day we can get a picture of a boat going through there?Derek Andrews (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallery or in-line images

The whole purpose of images is to illustrate and illuminate the content. In my view, relegating all images to a gallery, and leaving the body as dry unillustrated text, doesn't improve the article. I understand that you are trying to create a photo-sequence along the canal, but that wish must take second place to a well illustrated article. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that we shouldn't have too many pictures in the article. Given the number of pictures that we already have of the eastern end, either the gallery is going to end up hopelessly skewed towards Huddersfield, or is going to be way too big. Mayalld (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If there really is a wealth of pictures and information, maybe there should be a second page 'Description of the HNC' which has the route map, a detailed text description of the route today, and inline photos?Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I like pictures; I think they add alot of value to articles. Galleries are nearly always discouraged on Wikipedia (and I'm sure there's a convention about this somewhere), but I think we need someway to ensure they don't conflict with other templates and don't overbare the article. Are there any good or featured "canal" articles we could look at for inspiration? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Route map

Former Lock 2E - if this is now no longer in use, I think a different symbol and caption should be used, maybe the 'Misc. structure' symbol if there is anything to be seen, or a new 'site of former' symbol if all trace has gone, and caption to be a little more specific. Bates Tunnel East Portal Queen Street South & Bates Tunnel West Portal I mentioned before. This is clear as silt to me. It looks from the photo that there are actually two tunnels here so why the labels 'portal'? Do we also need the name of the road? Sellars tunnel ditto

Bates and Selles Tunnels are one tunnel each. I've therefore corrected the Route Map to show two portals each for both Bates and Sellers tunnels not two tunnels each.SalakCop (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lock 2E is complete, as built, though without any gates fitted. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lock numbering there are several flights that don't carry lock numbers, and most of the western locks aren't numbered. Is there an explanation why the western locks go as high as 32W, but there aren't that many locks? Do they carry on from the Aston canal maybe? Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did number all the 'missing' eastern locks, from Aspley Basin through to 31W back in April 2008, prior to going off on a holiday with the intention of doing the western locks on my return. However whilst I was away they were removed by another editor, so I decided not to waste time on the western side and have them removed as well. You can see the original numbering I did here:- Template Edit.

"Sellars Tunnel" on the route map is a mis-spelling. This should be "Sellers" (as in Sellers Engineering) and requires changing. Ref - http://www.huddersfieldcanal.com/restoration/sellerstunnel.htm. JohnB57 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now done. Similar mis-spelling in body text also corrected.JohnB57 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Start of HNC

The picture labelled "Historic start to the Huddersfield Narrow Canal" shows a British Waterways sign next to lock 1E saying "Welcome to Huddersfield Narrow Canal". Does this mean that BW still consider the start of the HNC to be lock 1E. Hence is it appropriate to refer to the revised start of the HNC as being Aspley Basin?SalakCop (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BW do indeed consider the start of the HNC to be Lock 1E. This has been mentioned before in the section above titled:- Images should only be of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard. There's nothing in the section titled "Images should only be of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal?W which states that BW do indeed consider the start of the HNC to be lock 1E - have I missed something? Indeed, you actually state that "Although, Historically the Narrow Canal ended at Lock 1E ... this is no longer the case" and "This [Wakefield Road Bridge] has since come to be accepted as the start of the Narrow Canal". Maybe it's just the phrases "Revised start of HNC" and "Historical Start of HNC" that niggle me; nothing's been offically revised as far as I'm aware. How about we change them to "Commonly-accepted start of HNC" and "Official start of HNC" respectively?SalakCop (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the wording 'Historically' and 'Revised' does not sit well with me either. Lock 1E remains the start of the HNC and the lock sign on the photo I took (shown in the infobox) shows it belongs to and is maintained by British Waterways. That, to me at least, indicates they still consider Lock 1E to be the start of the HNC, otherwise they would have fitted the sign by the road bridge where it passes from the Marina area. Effectively it was construction work on the Wakefield Road bridge by the Highways Dept, that was required to allow increased weight usage for European lorries, that prevented the passage of anything larger than a Narrowboat to go past the Aspley Basin to the old warehouse units. If anything the wording should be changed to indicate Lock 1E is still the start of the HNC and that the road bridge has a width restriction. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky one isn't it. You don't like my suggestions as to how we might rename these two labels? I was thinking we could also add a small section to the main article along the lines of... "Boundary between Huddersfield Narrow and Broad Canals. The official start of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal is immediately downstream of lock 1E. However when the Huddersfield Narrow Canal was closed, the Wakefield Road Bridge on the Huddersfield Broad Canal, which is a few hundred yards downstream of lock 1E, was also blocked. Wakefield Road Bridge was eventually restored to navigation but the width of the bridge for canal users was limited to the dimensions of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal rather than those of the Huddersfield Broad Canal. Hence broad-beamed boats are now unable to navigate Wakefield Road Bridge and the de facto boundary between the two canals is now considered to be immediately downstream of Wakefield Road Bridge." What do you think please? SalakCop (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a long winded way of saying The start of the HNC is Lock 1E, and only Narrow boats are able to pass through the tunnel under the Wakefield Road bridge." :) I have edited the template to show a width restriction on the bridge, amended the article page header to match and added a smaller text edit to the 'Restoration' section to clarify the tunnel width restriction. I hope those are acceptable. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise this has been thrashed around ad-nauseum above but it is still inconsistent Richard. If the original HBC connection from Aspley Basin is still NOT an official part of HNC, surely it should strictly not be included in the HNC article? If that's the case, a short article on the connection section would technically be a correct but cumbersome solution. However, as this section of canal is navigable, but cannot be used by broad vessels it seems logical, whatever BW's official position to incude it as part of the HNC article, specifying its origins with the HBC as per the route map. Your paragraph on the Wakefield Road strengthening does not locate that section outside the boundary of the HNC, althought the introduction very much specifies lock 1E as the commencement. The HBC article is no clearer on this but any potential canal users could be a little confused I feel.JohnB57 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this under the "Huddersfield" section: -

"The Huddersfield Narrow Canal made its original connection with the Huddersfield Broad Canal at lock 1E, to the west of the A629 Wakefield Road. Following strengthening work to Wakefield Road, this short section of canal is no longer available to broad vessels and, although British Waterways have not officially redesignated it, its eastern end forms the effective commencement/terminus of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal." JohnB57 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds suitable and could also be inserted into the HBC article! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. I have used the new suggested wording with added detail from the article itself and moved text around to match the photos. It look ok to me now but would appreciate your overview. I'll use the same text in the HBC article.JohnB57 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now looks much better IMHO. I think there are still a couple of problems though. 1. The Route Map still has the HNC ending and the HBC starting at two different places. Hence the section between Wakefield Road Bridge and lock 1E is in limbo. How about we remove the "Huddersfield Broad Canal" labal that's just above Aspley Basin and change "Start of HNC" to "Huddersfield Broad Canal" - this will then be consistent with how Ashton Canal is treated at the other end of the Route Map. Now that Richard has added a label against Wakefield Road Bridge indicating the width restriction and John has added a discussion of the start of the HNC to the main article, this all fits together quite well I feel. 2. I suggest that "Following strengthening work to Wakefield Road" is misleading. My understanding is that in the 70s (?), the Wakefield Road Bridge was widened to road users and this resulted in the complete blockage of the HBC at this point. When the Wakefield Road Bridge was restored to canal users, it was only made wide enough for narrow boats. Hence I suggest replacing this text with "When Wakefield Road Bridge was re-opened to canal users, it was only made wide enough for narrowboats. Hence".SalakCop (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup - all sounds pretty logical to me. I did some rudimentary research regarding the strengthening work but was unable to get further information so simply adapted and combined the original text into my version. It seems logical that the canal tunnel was not constructed at that time so fair comment but my son works for Kirklees Highways so I'll let him do some research! The problem with the route map is that it cannot be backed up with citation as the official start of the HBC remains immediately east of lock 1E. This makes the short section technically HBC but effectively "no man's land". Not sure what the answer is but I look forward to the final version.JohnB57 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is ok as revised body text... but I won't hold my breath! I cannot find any info on the extent of the original bridge work on Wakefield Road, or the date that the tunnel was installed. I am reliably informed that council records are unlikely to elucidate further. My re-wording is deliberately vague therefore, although I believe accurate in material detail. Perhaps one of you would adjust the route map? JohnB57 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the Template and moved the section between Lock 1E and Aspley Basin onto the HBC map Template. That should make it easier to follow. Note that even back in the 70's the area to the west of Wakefield Road was open to canal users, though limited. I used to amuse myself by catching crayfish from the holes in the walls. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a student at Huddersfield School of Music at that time and also a keen photographer - wish I still had the photos I took of this area! Not sure if the amended text satisfies SalakCop's query regarding the installation of the tunnel but your memory serves better than ours Richard. Interestingly, on reading other websites I note there used to be a connection with the River Colne just east of lock 1E which I assume to be for water level as it couldn't have been for navigation purposes. I presume this is now filled in or ducted but it might be worth a mention both on here and the HBC article. Any memories Richard? JohnB57 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting 1971 low res image from ther Kirklees Image Archive - http://www.kirkleesimages.org.uk/frontend.php?action=zoom&keywords=km02996&continueUrl=ZnJvbnRlbmQucGhwPyZrZXl3b3Jkcz1hc3BsZXkrYmFzaW4mYWN0aW9uPXNlYXJjaA== - in which the area of isolated HBC you refer to can be seen Richard. The bus is on Wakefield Road and crossing what would have been the original HBC bridge which, even at that time, seems to have lost its broad connection to the basin - the wall looks comparatively new. Was the bridge ducted at that time or was the concrete tunnel in place? Increase in vehicle weights was much later - 1983 for the increase to 38 tonnes GVW; 1999 to 41 tonnes and 2001 to 44 tonnes, all depending on axle configuration so not sure when the strengthening work happened but not, for this reason at least, in the seventies. The small wharf just beyond the filled in "bridge" is still there. Other interesting images of the basin on the archive but nothing especially clear.JohnB57 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also found this - http://www.kirkleesimages.org.uk/frontend.php?action=zoom&keywords=km01697&continueUrl=ZnJvbnRlbmQucGhwPyZrZXl3b3Jkcz1uYXJyb3crY2FuYWwmYWN0aW9uPXNlYXJjaCZwYWdlPTI= which would reopen the can of worms if the description were accurate. Taken from beneath Wakefield Road bridge, basin side. As a courtesy, I contacted the Image Archive to check it was ok to put these links on the discussion page but have not had a response to my phone call and email. I've done so anyway, assuming no problem as it just links to their site.JohnB57 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't think to look here before but there's some information about the Wakefield Road Bridge in Keith Gibson's book "Pennine Dreams". On page 47, he talks about the council filling the HBC in where it was crossed by the Wakefield Road, it being cheaper than building a new six-lane highway bridge. No date but it would have been after January 1962. I would say 70s and if I've understood what Richard says above correctly, I think he agrees. Page 78 refers to the council deciding to build a new bridge on 18/2/85. Page 81 refers to it being opened in early 1986. BTW, I'm not saying that any of this needs to be included in the article; just FYI. SalakCop (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The second image link you placed is of the same area shown in my photo File:Huddersfield Narrow Canal from Aspley along rear of University.jpg, note you can also see the two university footbridges in the image. I believe you will find that image is from the 1950s when they infilled the canal, as a temporary dam, to enable them to work below the bridge to put in the foundations for the wider bridge footings. It was from then that the section through to Lock 1E was abandoned.

The first image link you gave showing Kilner Bank in the background (named after an ancestor of Jeremy Clarkson) is from much later, to the left of the canal is where the old buildings on commercial street, to the rear of the Drill Hall, were demolished to create the long classroom block (I think it was the science block) for the Polytechnic (now Huddersfield University). Where the ramp has been constructed to allow the building site across the canal is the old waterway lock linking through to the river Colne at the weir downstream of Swan Island and the Sea Cadet HQ. The ramp was also removed after landscaping and construction finished, it was sited exactly where the higher of the two footbridges now crosses over. You will note that the wide grassed area below the bridge now has some fully grown trees on it. Incidentally there is still some passage of water through the old lock as an overflow viewable |Here. There is also a small culvert between the buildings on the opposite side of the road from the Wharfe Motor Company.

Gallery or not

Hi, please discuss the issue over the presence of a gallery in the article rather than just reverting one another. Keith D (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keith, My position on this is as per my edit summaries. The gallery has been on the article for quite a while with no problems and no comments from any editors who are working on the article. Some images have been moved from the gallery to other parts of the article when required for the section being edited. The remaining images remain quite relevant to the article and add to the quality of the article and readers knowledge of the Canal areas. Suddenly and without first suggesting a move Jenuk1985, who has not done any work on the article, removed the gallery. I have reverted the removal on the basis that the gallery of images is small and relevant to the article and that no consensus for its removal was mooted on the talk page as per guidlines on WP:IG, before it was summarily removed. Jenuk1985 feels it is not required. I feel it is and that Jenuk1985 should first query the requirement for the gallery before removing it. as an editor with no involvement with the article that would have been the 'Polite thing to do'. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As an observer, I will throw in my two cents:

• Jenuk1985 was perfectly justified in being bold in removing the gallery, and Richard was similarly justified in disagreeing with the move and reverting the move. After that, the issue should have moved immediately to the talk page. (BTW, the comment about about "an editor with no involvement with the article" makes me nervous, because it veers towards WP:OWN (although I am sure that is not how it was intended) -- editors are typically not subject to different rules because of past involvement in the article, or lack thereof).
• The subject matter of the article could lend itself to a gallery, but the current one does not really meet the intent of WP:IG -- it's just a bunch of random views, or at least that's what it appears to be (if it isn't, then that just points to a different set of problems with the gallery). What purpose is being served by this gallery, other than trying to shoehorn a few images into the article? A title like "photo gallery" is usually a red flag. This is an interesting article. On first blush, the next steps towards improving would seem to be (in my own opinion) adding references and creating a better crafted gallery. The first questions we should be asking ourselves is: "What is this gallery intended to accomplish? What is it trying to demonstrate?" Once we know that, creating a better gallery should be fairly simple. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason I left the issue is because I really couldn't be bothered at the time to deal with an editor with ownership issues. The gallery blatantly violates WP:IG and should be removed. It should be noted that the editor who repeatedly adds the gallery is the same editor who added it in the first place. The gallery is just a random collection of photos, that is what the {{commonscat}} template is for. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I admit I did add the original gallery and if you look closer you will see that all but two of the images in the article were taken by me, after first coming across the article in [Revision]! However I don't have any ownership issues and I find that comment offensive! The issue here is the article not the editor who disagrees with your wish to delete everything rather than adapt and improve things. If you read the title descriptions of the images in the gallery you will see that the gallery is not comprised of a collection of 'random' images, but are titled to match what is written in the 'Huddersfield' section and thereby aid a readers understanding of the canal. Accordingly I have moved them into that section to make it easier to follow and merged in my two individual images from that section in the appropriate places as they progress along the canal. Perhaps you can now see why I feel they are relevant to the article? There is an overlapping problem, which became apparent after the canal map template was added to the article, if that template width could be reduced then the page would look a tad better, unfortunately, although I have edited that template with additional locks etc, I do not know how to reduce the width! NB: The scrolling problem on 1024x760 monitors is usually confined to those using the Google Chrome browser. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Move Aspley Basin photo to Huddersfield Broad Canal page?

Hi. I propose that the Aspley Basin photo be moved to the Huddersfield Broad Canal page. Given that Aspley Basin is the Huddersfield Broad Canal side of both the official and effective junction of the Huddersfield Broad Canal and the Huddersfiueld Narrow Canal. Any objections?Zin92 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections so done.Zin92 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• You have tried this before, see your previous entry third from the top of this talk page. As I was out of the country, as per the note on my talk page advising I would be away for a while and not here to object, and you have only left your proposal on for a week. I have therefore reverted your changes back to their original formats for the same reasons I gave above. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I left the proposal out there for 12 days rather than a week. I'm not sure of the relevance of the note on your talk page advising that you were away for a while. You also reverted my other change to the HNC page without explanation so I'm restoring this. You also haven't explained why you had to revert the change putting the image on the HBC page so I'm restoring this - this image seem appropriate to the HBC page given the image is of a place on the HBC. I would appreciate comments from other people as to the appropriateness of the image in question to the HNC page - could we not at least replace it with an image which more clearly shows the effective junction? Regards Zin92 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for deleting the additional change to the Image caption, I hadn't spotted that! I suppose in hindsight that the Aspley Basin image could be on each article, as not everyone will look at both articles. There already is an image of the start of the HNC, IE Lock 1E, and that is at the top of the infobox, plus further in the article there is an additional view of Lock 1E from next to the road tunnel, which is next to the image of Aspley Basin, IE the one with trees on the left side and the old canalside crane on the right. That is the view when stood at the opposite end of the tunnel which you expanded the caption to. Or is there something else you had in mind? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Huddersfield Narrow Canal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Requires infobox or possibly a route map/diagram Copy edit for WP:MOS e.g. use of page title in headings Keith D (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) The use of the {{Cite}} templates is not mandatory. However, in-line citations are needed to bring this up to B-class.Pyrotec (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Huddersfield Narrow 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/20040406053108/http://www.locksdocks.co.uk/ to http://www.locksdocks.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608093843/http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/visitorportal/whattodo/huddsnarrowcanal.asp to http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/visitorportal/whattodo/huddsnarrowcanal.asp

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) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)