Talk:Manchester Ship Canal/Archive 2

Railways Costs

Liverpool port costs were not expensive. The railway companies from Liverpool to Manchester overcharged. Rail companies to other destinations never charged so much. Garston Docks are not in the Port of Liverpool and had different charges, but had rail lines from the docks, which costed about the same as from the Port of Liverpool. If Liverpool costs were so high then using Garston would be cheaper - but it wasn't as the rail companies charges were high, not the port costs. The Port of Liverpool is massive and always had surplus capacity which was negotiable.

Good point about the Port of Liverpool and Garston being separate ports and competing with other. The same railway companies linked Garston & Liverpool to Manchester. What were the costs? This should be in the article.94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

First few sentences

Can we discuss this edit by me? It was undone by Parrot of Doom with the edit summary "the canal does not link manchester to the irish sea and your edits are not an improvement".

I appreciate that there isn't much room to explain yourself in an edit summary so maybe explaining it here will help. Here are some initial thoughts from me:

1. The article ship canal says that the MSC connects Manchester to the Irish sea. If we don't want to say that here we should probably change it there too (although I would wait till the conclusion of this discussion).
2. The point of the canal is to connect the sea to the city. Even if the entry to the canal is in the estuary...
   1. Any estuary is a halfway zone between a river and the sea.
   2. The estuary per se isn't that interesting as a destination - the reason the canal was built was to get ships from the sea.
   3. Let's not sacrifice clarity (about the purpose of the canal) for pedantry
3. At the other end of the canal I said Greater Manchester, rather than Manchester. This is correct, even if we are going to get pedantic.
4. The previous wording didn't mention the two things that the canal connected. This is essential for people to quickly understand what the canal is about.
5. The previous wording said that the MSC was a river navigation, without explaining what a river navigation is. The new wording introduces the phrase later (near the bit about the relevant rivers) and uses a wikilink to provide explanation.
6. The previous wording didn't state that the MSC was a ship canal. While this may seem obvious, having it there in the first sentence, with a wikilink, helps to orientate people who are unfamiliar with the concept.

In short, I think my new wording is an improvement because it gives extra context for the general audience, who may be unfamiliar with different types of canal and the geography of North West England.

But maybe there is something about the new wording that is unhelpful. It would be good if Parrot of Doom or someone could state what they didn't like about it. Let's discuss it here and see if we can come up with some consensus text.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried following up the edit links yesterday before PoD stepped in and gave up before I lost the will to live . See Talk:Channel (geography) . The geographical articles are unloved at best. What is needed her is a new article river navigation and a re-jig of sentence 3 to include the wlink ship canal.(#6 above) That ship canal article is a C and possible should be reassessed as atart. Follow the links there are we come across silly definitions and redirections such as Barge Canal-

Salford Docks may be in GM county- but the link was to Manchester. Try the test and ask whether this was designed to link Rochdale, Wigan or Marple- with the Mersey - no, it was designed (and still does) just to link to Salford and Manchester.(ref Wood 2005, p20 et seq)

The point of the Big Ditch was to enter the Mersey Estuary six miles above the Pierhead at Liverpool- so that carriers had two access point to the Mersey estuary so trade was not strangled by restrictive practices and port charges in Liverpool. It provided a second port to the Mersey estuary- the whole Irish Sea bit was irrelevant.

Please read the talk page in 2009. This point was raised and it has never been substantiated. What were the ports charges? What were the rail charges? This needs clarifying. 94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So at this point- I have an appointment with a kettle. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Parrot of Doom, though river navigation could be linked. Greater Manchester did not exist when it was built and the article mentions the two things it connected, the Mersey estuary and Manchester. "The Manchester Ship Canal is a ship canal" is rather repetitive wording for a featured article. That the ship canal article says something different is no reason to change this one. J3Mrs (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Canal gives Grt Manchester a link with the Mersey estuary only. The estuary is between the sea and Grt Manchester for sure, but the sea is also between the estuary and the ocean.94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think the statement that "The Manchester Ship Canal is [a] 36-mile-long (58-km-long) ship canal" is a particularly good way to begin an article. To begin with repeating "ship canal" twice in the same sentence isn't great writing. I've had similar issue when writing articles on say castles. An opening sentence along the lines of "Rochester Castle is a castle in Rochester" is going to make a reader sigh and look up something else. You only get one chance at a first impression. You make a good point about readers not necessarily knowing what a ship canal is, but equally I would rather not send readers to another article in the very first sentence. The concept of a ship canal is simple and perhaps could be explained in the opening paragraph by explaining what the canal did. It's already that "Although able to accommodate a range of vessels from coastal ships to inter-continental cargo liners, the canal is not large enough for all modern vessels" so perhaps this could be adapted and moved earlier, although this would have to be carefully done to avoid spoiling the narrative of the lead; the material on the economic success of the canal for instance is better where it is. Nev1 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Liverpool Golf Club is not in Liverpool. The Royal Liverpool Golf Club is in Hoylake. So it is legitimate to state the title and the place, even if the place is in the title.94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In the thread above, MF uses the words "...the MSC allows sea-going ships to navigate up the rivers Mersey and Irwell into the centre of Manchester." Words like that are a simple explanation of what it is. Why not use them, or similar words, in the opening? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The canal is just that, a canal. Only small parts of these river are used in the 36 mile canal. 94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Using other Wikipedia articles to justify edits is rarely a sound strategy, especially considering the state of most articles here. The canal doesn't link Manchester to the Irish Sea, its terminus is alongside the Mersey Estuary. Who are we to decide if the Estuary is less "important" than the Irish Sea, which itself is a lot less important than the Atlantic Ocean. Where vessels go from the MSC is anyone's guess - some go onto the Leeds and Liverpool Canal or the River Weaver. Others went onto the Bridgewater Canal. The point of the MSC wasn't merely to connect to the sea, Manchester already had many such connections. It was built to bypass Liverpool's ports, the railways, the Bridgewater Canal and the dilapidated M&I Navigation. In this sense, pedantry is far more important than an individual editor's opinion on clarity. Greater Manchester is a modern invention and is just about irrelevant to the privately-owned MSC, which using the same wording would link to Merseyside, not Liverpool. As for the original wording not explaining that the Manchester Ship Canal is a ship canal, well the clue is in the title.

Those are the main reasons I reverted your edit. Parrot of Doom 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

AS most of docks were not in Manchester, it is clearer to say the docks were mostly in Lancashire, which is now Grt Manchester.94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I think Nev1's comments were particularly helpful. I'll have a think and come up with a further suggestion for a reword. Yaris678 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think this is an improvement but obviously we can discuss it further. I think it gets even more quickly to the point of the canal, and avoids some of the problems of my previous wording, such as repetition of "ship canal" and use of the term "Greater Manchester". Yaris678 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. The MSC allows the egress of more than just ocean-going vessels. And the ship canal doesn't give ocean-going vessels access to Manchester since they're now blocked by a fixed bridge. Parrot of Doom 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The canal gives access not just to Gtr Manchester, it has always given access to many points in Cheshire. Today few ships go up to Salford. Most today never go above Runcorn.94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to revert but I thought that "improvement" was completely without merit. Change for the sake of change. J3Mrs (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a better way to word it but:

1. Ocean-going vessels can currently reach Port Salford, which is in Salford and and not far from Manchester. Admittedly, Sky News might be pushing it when they say "Port Salford in the very heart of Manchester" but that statement does indicate that, in the grand scheme of things, ocean-going vessels can still get to Manchester.
2. Mentioning ocean-going makes the point of the canal very clear from the beginning. That is what the lead is all about.

I can see that it can get complicated because we want to describe the canal as it is now and as it was originally built. Ideally, the article should start with something that covers both, but then we have issues like the changing of counties and the the blocking of the route beyond Port Salford.

I'm no more in favour of change for change's sake than anyone else. And (as I have already indicated) I am happy to talk about the nature of any change. But I am pretty sure that something does need to change. The fact is that the article currently starts by saying "The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England." This does not lead people into the article:

1. It is vague about the location
2. It says nothing about why the canal is special
3. It uses the term "river navigation", which most people will be unfamiliar with and which is much less important than either of the above.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your argument is based on a fundamental mis-understanding of what the MSC is and I do not agree with anything you've written. I think the lead is fine as it is and I don't see that position changing any time soon. Parrot of Doom 16:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please identify this fundamental misunderstanding. Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting everything you've written would be a waste of space. It's clear you don't really know anything about the subject to hand. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle made a point earlier about wording suggested by Malleus some time ago which I think is worth considering. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But the lead already says this. Parrot of Doom 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Starting at the Mersey Estuary near Liverpool, it generally follows...up to Manchester where the canal's terminus was built" doesn't sound at all vague to me. There is plenty later on in the lead about what makes the canal special (largest river navigation canal in the world, enabled the newly created Port of Manchester to become Britain's third busiest port—despite the city being about 40 miles (64 km) inland etc.) and there is a link to River navigation. The only problem I see is that the link goes to a section of an article about canalisation that doesn't tell you what the term "river navigation" means. If you added something about that to the other article that would solve the problem. Richerman (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You make some valid points94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The third sentence in the second paragraph says exactly what MF suggested. I think Yaris is trying to fit too much information into the opening sentence/paragraph. It is the lead, not the opening paragraph that summarises the article. I linked river navigation using the link Yaris provided so people could access what it meant, the only thing I could suggest is linking ship canal. It is fine and clear as it is. J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec x2) True, though I was wondering if it could be made more prominent. The canal's route is I think properly treated in the second sentence, but if a way could be found to crowbar in the reason the MSC was built in the opening paragraph I think it would be an improvement as the reader wouldn't need to leave to find out what a river navigation is because it would act as an explanation. Or at least, if it could be done without compromising the rest of the paragraph. I confess I'm not quite sure how to do that otherwise I'd suggest a possible wording. The lead taken as a whole hits the nail on the head, so perhaps there's no need to worry about it too much. Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that we could be worrying too much over the first sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reason for building canal - needs clarification & citation

This sentence.."Liverpool's dock and the railway companies' charges as excessive." This need a citation at the earliest point in the article. Citation and clarification not should be way down the article. These are two point rolled into one. Excessive port charges and excessive rail charges. Which was it? What was the difference between the two charges? These should be separated. 94.193.164.11 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:LEAD yet? Eric Corbett 15:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and it clarified my points. Please stop vandalizing until the obvious points are addressed and a citation given. One of the points of Wiki is co-operation to make professional looking articles. You being obstinate on clear unsubstantiated issues is not helping. I see in the talk page this issue has been partially raised a number of years ago. It has still not been fully addressed. 94.193.164.11 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may have read it, but you clearly don't understand it. And I would strongly advise you not to accuse me of vandalism if you wish to continue editing here. Eric Corbett 16:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The citation/clarification that you were looking for is already in the "Early history" section of the article. No need to duplicate it in the lead. Bazonka (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation should be at the earliest mentioned point in an article. The two points raised are not addressed in the article. None is in the links. This is not the first time this problem has been flagged. Read back on this talk page188.222.102.132 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Eric Corbett 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr Corbett you think you are the only person than can contribute to this article. Your English is poor to boot. Please stop vandalizing the article. 94.194.20.165 (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever else Mr Corbett may be, he is not a vandal. Citations should not be included in the lead; the citation for the statement in the lead is included in the main text. However, the wording in the lead could, I think, be improved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally disagree. He is arrogant and thinks he knows best and resorted to gross vandalism. He refuses to cooperate in the Wiki ethos. I brought up a legitimate point and it was dismissed by him. The points I raised have been brought up over the years - look back on this talk page. The coloured map of Salford Docks adds value to the article. Some of the English in the article is very poor and childlike. The same points I raised are brought up in the history section with a link not substantiating the article's writing. In the 1890s, the Mersey estuary had two competing deep water ports, Liverpool and Garston. No other town or city complained about Liverpool's port charges. If they were high then Garston could be used. There was no charge just for Manchester bound goods and another for everyone else. I have studied the history of the port charges and cannot find any evidence of overcharging. There was overcharging by rail companies, however I have found none relating to excessive port charges to the point a super-expensive ship canal needed building. The points I raised are valid and unless substantiated the passages must be removed. The points of port and rail charges are used as the reason for building the canal, which is spurious to say the least. Wiki is about FACT, not myth. 94.194.20.165 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Before you do anything else, please read WP:VANDNOT and WP:NPA. Then take a deep breath, consider the possibility of apologising, and make your specific points in a calm manner, so that other editors can consider whether they have any validity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. Please bear in mind WP:VNT - what's in the article may be inaccurate (I don't know), but it is sourced. What you're stating is entirely unsourced and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Provide a WP:RS before raising again. Bazonka (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me point out that the article doesn't actually say that Liverpool's port charges were excessive, what it says it that they were perceived to be excessive: "Manchester's business community viewed Liverpool's dock and the railway companies' charges as excessive", which is well documented. Eric Corbett 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And as for my poor English, it's difficult to take that criticism seriously from someone who believes "By the end of the 19th century there was three railway lines between the two cities" to be a legitimate construct. Eric Corbett 12:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the wording could be improved. It can be read as "...viewed Liverpool's dock... as excessive" - which requires a double-take, at best. It's not obvious that the word "charges" refers to "Liverpool's dock [charges]" as well as "the railway companies' charges". How about "...viewed the charges levied by Liverpool's docks, and the railway companies, as excessive." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fond of those parenthetical commas, so I offer this alternative: "Manchester's business community viewed the charges imposed by Liverpool's docks and the railway companies as excessive". Eric Corbett 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Either they were excessive or not. The "excessive" rail charges were the problem. I have written in a piece from the inquiry in the building of the canal from The History of the Manchester Ship Canal. It was clear east Lancashire were blowing up a gripe to get an act through Parliament. It was clear the railways were overcharging and milking Liverpool. Liverpool Docks charged more, but the port was very large, efficient and the most advanced port in the world with interconnected docks, so a ship could unload in one dock and sail through the docks 6 miles to another dock to load, 24 hrs a day as there were no tides in the docks system. Liverpool ship owners also invested in the canal, such as Alfred Holt. When initially the canal was not doing much business Holt sent a line of ships to use the canal to get it established. The comment on Hull was that Manchester could import Baltic timber from Hull cheaper than American timer from Liverpool. After the canal opened most cotton was still via Liverpool. No cotton went via Hull, as that would be financial madness. 94.194.20.165 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Several reliable source make the same point, that Manchester businessmen perceived both the Liverpool dock's and the railway charges to be excessive. What's your reliable source to contradict that? Eric Corbett 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reliable source was given, but you never read it reverting to vandalism. 94.194.20.165 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Then stop vandalising the article. Simple. Eric Corbett 16:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The only vandalism is by CORBETT. He thinks the article is only amended by him. I changed the poor English, added value, removed unproved writings and gave references.188.222.174.61 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I helped write this article. If you find any problems, list them on this talk page, in a separate thread, with supporting references to reliable, published sources. Your own thoughts and private research cannot and will not ever be considered here.

As for your claims that Eric is a vandal, they're just laughable. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I've been having problems with commas... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The trick with this sort of thing is often to repeat something. For example, you could say "Manchester's business community viewed the charges by Liverpool's docks and by the railway companies as excessive." Yaris678 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You could, but it's really not very nice. Eric Corbett 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)