Talk:Waterford Flight
(Redirected from Talk:The Waterford Flight)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by The Night Watch in topic Requested move 31 December 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waterford Flight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 31 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from The Waterford Flight to Waterford Flight. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 31 December 2022
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The Waterford Flight → Waterford Flight – standardize article title per WP:THE Reify-tech (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incorrect statement
editIn the lead it says, "The Waterford Flight remains the flight with the highest elevation gain (169 feet = 51,5 m) relative to its length (1.5 mile) for any canal lock system in the world.[1]", quoting a source.
Unfortunately, the source is wrong. Locks 4-7 on the Welland canal rise 190 feet (49, 43, 52, 46, feet, respectively) in a distance of 0.8 nautical miles (0.92 statute miles), see Welland Canal. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody revised the claim accordingly in the article lead. Reify-tech (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)