Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways 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.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire 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.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I think this article is no longer B class. Chris Padley has rewritten it using the text of his own book, and has deleted all inline references, so that the entire history section is unreferenced. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have reinstated most of the references, which still support the text as written, even though they were deleted by Chris Padley. There is some new material, which I presume comes from his book, so I may just buy a copy so we can cite it properly. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm probably writing this about four years later than I should have done. I'm sorry if I seemed to have messed up the references at that time, but I wanted to remove those modern secondary sources which have been overtaken by more recent research and are now known to be inaccurate. Perhaps this is not the protocol on Wikipedia? I have to say I have been surprised to find comments on my alterations made without, apparently, reading my book. It is the only work on the canal which has been fully researched from original sources (after a most exhaustive search of archives, libraries, contemporary newspapers, and local contacts etc). It was published by a Society with a long record, and high reputation for publishing historical research, and was independently checked before publication. It contains a complete list of references for all the sources. Having made those criticisms, I have to say that, as it stands today I can find no fault with the article. There are no inaccuracies, and as they stand today the references seem appropriate and helpful for those wanting to read more. So, thank you to those responsible. 82.31.109.82 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
