Talk:Ship canal

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 15 June 2020 for a period of one week.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Ship canal is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Corinth canal

Shouldn't the Corinth Canal be included here? --rossb (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this meets the criteria as a notable ship canal. I'll add it along with my more recent proposal. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

This section contains the following statement, "The canal that brought about an age of canal building was the Erie canal" This is not true since the Erie Canal was built after the European Canals were complete and were being superseded by railroads. It may be true if you only consider canals in North America but the reference doesn't support even this limited statement.OrewaTel (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed since 2009

The following has needed clarification since 2009:

For a canal to qualify as a ship canal, it must have a minimum depth of at least 5 metres (16.4 feet)

with a reason:

that critical removes half the following canals

There has been no clarification, and no source has been provided for that definition of a ship canal. Surely the only definition needed for a ship canal is that it is/was designed to accommodate ships that navigate/navigated adjoining oceans, seas or lakes; as opposed to being for vessels specifically designed for river/canal navigation. As nobody has seen fit to clarify in over 3 years, no point in seeking more clarification/sourcing; being brave and changing the definition. -- Starbois (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stroudwater Navigation

The Stroudwater Navigation, 1779, was indeed "especially intended to accommodate ships used on the oceans, seas, or lakes to which it is connected" - Severn Trows. 70ft LOA x 15.5ft beam may seem small by modern standards, but for the Georgian era that was absolutely massive, and intended to serve the seagoing vessels of the Bristol Channel.

If there are no objections I'll go ahead and add it, it was ahead of its time. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal, which was connected later (1827), with significantly larger length and beam restrictions. It was intended to allow larger ships to visit Gloucester Docks without negotiating the river bend at Arlingham, so belongs on the list as an important predecessor to the Manchester Ship Canal. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]