Talk:River Irwell

River Irwell has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 21, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
November 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Rivers Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Mid‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK Waterways Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location

I don't think Greater Manchester is a county any longer? (It shouldn't be. Been far better if it had been strangled at birth as they say)

The river rises on Deerplay Moor - is this actually in Cliviger?

I think it should be made clear that the Irwell enters the city of Salford (at Clifton) before it enters Manchester.

Greater Manchester is a county! This is a long winded but resolved issue both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, due to broad and accepted consensus, administrative issues, and also legal status. However I am writing just to ask a question; doesn't the River Beal (which runs through Shaw and Crompton and Milnrow) join the River Irwell as a tributary? Thanks, Jhamez84 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Sorry I see it joins the River Roch first! Thanks, Jhamez84 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

According to page 91 of Hyde, M., O'Rourke, A. & Portland, P. (2004). Around the M60: Manchester's Orbital Motorway. Altrincham: AMCD (Publishers) Ltd. ISBN 1897762305.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), the Irwell "rises as a spring in a field on Irwell Farm, north of Bacup in Lancashire". This contradicts the current wording in the article. Any body have any commentary about this discovery? --Jza84 | Talk 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, I was just reading the same book myself. Certainly I don't find the present picture of a field with no water in sight as the source of the Irwell to be terribly convincing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only proof read the book this evening, but from that alone, I've spotted a few dodgy quotes... Apparently, Alkrington is now Manchester's greatest (or something comparable) stately park, Chadderton's mills have become Oldham's and "Greater Manchester County" (their capitalisation) was abolished in 1983 (!?) "lasting only 9 years". Also, a little more sadly if you ask me, the Industrial Revolution is now just "industrial revolution". On the flipside there's some interesting little facts, but I'm worried about some of the fact checking!... I noticed Chat Moss gets a mention too.

So, rant over, are you happy for me to make the change above? The current claim is unsourced, but can't imagine anyone adding that without reason. --Jza84 | Talk 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia's Chat Moss article sets the gold standard so far as I'm concerned. Accurate, well-researched, and beautifully written. Whoever wrote that deserves a medal. :lol:

To be serious though, Richerman's done an awful lot of work on the Irwell article, so I'd be inclined to wait until he's given his opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book I've got say's something about it rising on or near a farm north of Bacup at Irwell Springs (I think), I'll check it tonight. I think that it is on Deerplay Moor but I'll have to check up on that. I'm not too happy with that photo either as you can't see any water on it but it was the only one I could find on Geograph. Looks like I'll have to get out the pith helmet, hire a few native bearers, go up there, and take one myself. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/673827 and click on the map below, then go up to the north-west a little, you'll find that Irwell Spring is on Deerplay Moor. I think the farm is called Irwell Farm if memory serves me right. Richerman (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tributaries

This page talks about Weddell Brook in Bury, which would seem to be here. It has been pinned a few times on Google Earth. Any thoughts? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1950/apr/18/river-irwell-pollution#S5CV0474P0-00744 is an interesting read regarding pollution of the river Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is really good stuff, I'll get some of it added in, and the stuff about Kersal for that article too. Richerman (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a good source of information on pollution - here, do a search for 'River Irwell'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda Cut

I came across this today: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/00features/424/00a.html

The 'Anaconda Cut', in Salford. Seems like a worthy addition to this article as a piece of civil engineering. I've looked on [1] and the location is just here, it curves northeast roughly following the curvy bit of Short St. Interestingly, unlike most changes, you can't really see where the old river was by looking at aerial photography. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC) And heres an image I 'borrowed' from a Facebook group ;) Flickr Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too was very surprised to see that there was no mention of this important development in this article considering it was this single part of the river responsible for the flooding in 1866 and 1946 in Salford. Sorry I am not up to the task of editing an article but I hope these two links will help whoever is. The first is an old map of Manchester/Salford showing the river and the route it once took and the second an aerial photograph of what was known as the 'Anaconda Bend' before the cut was made.

http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/michelin_michelin-guide-to-the-british-isles_1911_manchester_2008_2185_600.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundman/2830040495/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.115.128 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been updating the history section form newspaper cuttings in Salford Local Hstory library but it's a slow process as I only get the occasional lunchbreak free when I can do it. This will make an interesting addition to the history section and I'll add something in as soon as I get chance. Thanks for the links. Richerman (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

There are a lot of Manchester Evening News sources on here, which is fine, however nearly all are missing either a page number, or author information. This information will be required to improve the article's rating, could whoever added them (presumably they have one of those online access accounts) please edit the references and add that information accordingly? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this point on the Parrot of Doom's talk page but I'll reply here too for the record. The newspaper references have all come from actual newspaper cuttings or photocopies of articles kept in the Salford Local History Library. Unfortunately they don't keep a record of the page number when they take them, only the date of publication. Also, I've put in the name of the author where it's given in the article, but many short newspaper articles (and even some longer ones) in local papers don't have any indication of who the author is. I suppose you could possibly find the page numbers for the M.E.N. articles by finding a library with the newspaper on microfiche, but it would take hours to do it and some of the articles are from newspapers that are long gone. To be honest it seems a lot of work for a small return. Richerman (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map

Let me have your thoughts on the map - I'm not sure the colours are quite right just now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - how did you do that? The colours look ok to me, the only thing I would say is that the place names are hard to read - could they be made bigger? Also shouldn't the Ship Canal be marked on it?

~~OK I'll make those changes. I just realised I haven't put the Irk or Medlock on either. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changes made. The fonts could go slightly larger but then they look a bit daft when viewed in full size. At the moment, shrunk into the infobox you can just about read the major bits. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent - I was struggling to read them on the full size map before but I can read them on both now. Richerman (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some maps here of the catchment area that you may find useful Richerman (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will extend the river through Bacup. Now if you could just find me a map showing the area of the Irwell Valley that would be very useful indeed :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to do everything? :) Oh, allright then, I'll have a look. Richerman (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Copied from my talk page:

I'm not sure about the length of some of the 20th century material, and I also have misgivings about the Mark Addy section. The sections on commerce are great though, I like how they focus on the competitive nature of the companies involved. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Having the natural history section does cause its own problems as I'm trying to tell the story of the river's decline and the slow path back to recovery in the history section by focusing on the water quality, and the fish stocks in the river are the best indicator of this. However Natural History is part of the recommended structure. The 20th century part of the history is looking a bit unbalanced at the moment but that's because there's a lot of information in the local history library from then. Maybe when I've finished it will even out a bit, but if it still looks too long then it can always be trimmed down. The Mark Addy section went in early on, but since then I've contributed to an article about him, so I think he can be reduced to a couple of sentences in the 19th century section. Richerman (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for GAC?

Are we ready for GAC now? I think all the problems mentioned on the GM talk page have been fixed. Just one thing - is that picture of Radcliffe a touched-up photograph or a painting taken from a photograph? The light in the windows and on the church tower doesn't look natural and the lines along the river look drawn. Richerman (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been touched up with a pen IMO, but it has to be from an aerial photograph. My opinion is that it was touched up to make it look better in print, perhaps the original photograph was a bit hazy - after all, the air would have been thick with smoke.

I really think (and this is a toughie) that it would benefit from a photograph of the pollution in the river. I will have a look around when I get back home this week, theres bound to be something around we can use. If that isn't possible, perhaps a generic river pollution image with a suitable caption?

Also, as it has an image of the start of the river, would it not benefit from one of the confluence of the Mersey and Irwell? I live a mile from there so it would be very easy for me to get one. I think regarding the GAC it should be ok, personally I would ask for a peer review to begin with.Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really seen the point of peer review. Be bold! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I got rid of the image of the "source" as there was not a sign of water on it and I think it was more like "the moors near the source." However, a picture of the confluence of the Merey and Irwell would be good. I've looked on geograph for other photos of the source but there aren't any, other than one a bit further down near Irwell Springs, (see right) which is a pretty depressing picture - not that that's a reason not to use it I suppose. There is a lot of pollution near the source from an old mine that's taken out in a treatment plant at Old Meadows which I've just found a story about here but I've not decided where best to work it in yet - you can see the orange staining in the picture. There has been a peer review request at the top of this page for a bit but there haven't been any takers - and to be honest I find they are just one person's view, and we've already had quite a few on this article. I'll pop over to the local history library and see if they have any photos we can use of the pollution. There is one of detergent foam on the river in the 70s on the dust jacket of the Bracegirdle book but I suppose that will be copyright. Richerman (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a peer review - click the link above. I only just noticed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been over to the library and found a picture of the river at the Crescent covered with detergent foam. I've got a photocopy of it (along with some other nice piccies) which I'll upload tonight but I'll have to take a floppy disk in (remember those?) to save a scanned copy as you can't save onto the hard disk of their PCs. Richerman (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use my cameraphone - a 5MP Nokia set on silent is a godsend :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh you naughty boy! As I spend quite a bit of time over there I don't want to get chucked out just yet. And my phone isn't 5Mp anyway - although the next one will be :) Richerman (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foam on the Irwell.jpg

This is the photocopied version, was that what you had in mind??

Appreciate the effort but I wouldn't have known that was pollution unless told :) Is there a better quality version? I could probably filter the interference out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a photocopy - it shows up well when the photograph is scanned, but I haven't been able to get the scan out of the library yet as you can't attach it to an email from their PCs and when I try to upload to wikipedia from their it times-out half way through. I may have to sneak the photo out of the library temporarily to do it - or borrow my wife's phone and take a sneaky photo of it. BTW Did you see the picture I added to Manchester Cathedral Steps? Richerman (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for that pic :) I have some images of the River Roch if you're interested, they're here. The bridge is the original bridge that carried the manchester-bury road over the Roch, before the Blackford Bridge was built. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, maybe we'll have to look at the Roch next (note the correct spelling). There's half a filing cabinet drawer of old photos of local bridges in the local history library including one of people walking across the Clifton aqueduct in 1908 in their Edwardian finery - must have been a Sunday. If I can get a scan of that one out I'll upload it. I see you've got the one of logs on the MBB - a few years time and that one will be out of copyright. I've fixed most of the points mentioned in the peer review so far. I think the lead needs lengthening a bit and then I'll give him a nudge to say it's done. He made some good points. Richerman (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only sorry I haven't been able to do more lately, I've been snowed under with work. The images above are from a day off, I thought 'bugger this' and went off walking for a bit to clear my head :) I do know that the council plan to do something near that bridge, (continuing a path from Springwater Park in Radcliffe, up to Blackford New Bridge) apparently much around there is private land but unused (the former Eagle Bleachworks site). I asked them about the bridge but they have no plans, I imagine it would cost a pretty penny to put that right! I'm thinking of applying to have it listed, just to see what's what, although it might not be 'interesting' enough to warrant it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice image (well it would be IMO, since I made it!!) for your consideration. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really nice image. If you can find a space, add it in. Would it be possible to enhance the contrast on the image I added to the Cathedral steps article? It is very faded. Richerman (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found what may be a better image than the Radcliffe one, its here and its Radcliffe again, but it does show the mess that the riverbanks were in. You can't see any pollution but I wouldn't want to swim in there! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) The Mersey and Irwell Navigation section is unsourced. Can we justify that to the reviewer? :S --Jza84 | Talk 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just noticed that myself, there are also some refs needed for the Ship Canal section too - These are sections that were added ages ago and I'd forgotten to check them over. I'll see if I can get references from the main articles. Richerman (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still agonising over this? You'll never know if it's a GA until you nominate it. I think it is, I guess you think it is, so what are you waiting for? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh you are a bully! It needed some more refs for the MSC section but I think it should be ok now. Richerman (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's ever perfect. Go on, nominate it now. Faint heart never won fair lady. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the nomination page and it will take me a bit to sort out how to do it and I should have been in bed about 2 hours ago. Any chance of you doing it on my behalf and I'll deal with the flak when it starts? Richerman (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate it now, and may God have mercy on your soul. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Wonderful, thank you, you're a good man to be sure, may the bright bird of paradise nest in your attic :) Richerman (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - excellent work. Ben Mac Dui 11:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusion

The above is not transcluding onto this page, which is a minor nuisance, but the comments are all there and can be edited easily enough. If anyone knows how to fix it pls feel free, but its getting late and I am signing off now. Ben Mac Dui 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extra pair of noinclude boxes, at the start and finish of your review in the GA1 - I've removed them and the problem appears to be fixed.Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ben Mac Dui 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medlock

I know we're in the middle of a GAC, but thought it worth a mention that we have this image of the confluence of the Melock and Irwell. It looks like its of suitable quality for the article if we need/want it. --Jza84 | Talk 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good quality image but I'm loath to add anything until the GAC's over as the reviewer has already commented on the number of new edits. Richerman (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, it's a fair point! --Jza84 | Talk 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead if you are so inspired. Ben Mac Dui 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geotag

Pit-yacker has suggested we should geotag the Irwell but I'm not sure how it should be done. There are draft recommendations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates/Linear which say the main point should be the estuary/mouth but there isn't really one as it joins the Mersey. Should we go for the source, mid point and confluence with the Mersey - and if so, do all three go at the top of the article or just one of them, with the others in the text?

I'd go with the midpoint. Jolly Ω Janner 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the river ends at the Woden St bridge in Salford, where it then becomes the ship canal (although ships can't get that far any more now that Trafford Swing Bridge is fixed). Personally, that's where I'd put it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I have been working my way through the Greater Manchester rivers, (they are one of the major subject areas that still need geotagging). The geobox template allows for source and mouth co-ordinates, so both can go into that template. However, the co-ordinates that geobox puts in top right are the mouth co-ordinates. Where a river joins another, I have put the confluence as the mouth. The main reason for tagging this article was that as Parrot of Doom suggests - the end of the River Irwell is not entirely clear Pit-yacker (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at it the other way - the ship canal ended at the Woden St bridge. So what comes after the canal... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh! I've put the coordinates in using the first three sets of figures as they come up on google earth, ignoring the ones after the decimal point, but the mouth ends up near Moscow. I've tried Earth Tools as well and that gives different figures (53.7336°N 2.1952°W for the source and 53.4726°N 2.2654°W for the mouth) but they still end up in some foreign country. Where am I going wrong? Richerman (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't tell it the N and W bit :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW do we need the co-ords at the top right any longer? Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's what goes in there! The ones at the top right are automatically generated from the mouth coordinates in the infobox. Richerman (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

I have a quote from Frangopulo (1977) that say the River Irwell was described as "the most hard-worked and over-tasked stream in the universe" (Tradition in Action, p. 136). That quote was itself from Cooke Taylor, W (1842), Notes of a Tour in the Manufacturing Districts of Lancashire (2nd ed.) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help). Might be worth a mention somewhere. --Jza84 | Talk 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else does he say about the area? Anything of use to any GM articles? Send me a copy of the relevant text if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tributaries

This section seems a bit huge. I wonder if there's a neater way of doing it? Perhaps some kind of collapsible wiki code, or fancy wiki toy? Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed it - I hadn't realised it was so simple to do. Richerman (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can you hurry up next time please :) Parrot of Doom 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must try harder, I must try harder, I must tr....... Richerman (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irwell, a tributary of the Mersey

This has puzzled me for quite some time. Surely at their confluence (Irlam), the Irwell (aka MSC) appears to be the main river in that it is surely far wider than the 'little' Mersey. Compare the Mersey in say Sale with the Irwell in say Salford and there's no comparison, the Irwell is the larger river surely. Anybody else care to comment please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.202.100 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irwell at that point is not the natural river but one that has been canalised to form Britain's largest canal - hardly a surprise that it's bigger than the Mersey! That said, the Irwell has also travelled further to get to that point than the Mersey. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on River Irwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on River Irwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on River Irwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.twocitiesboatrace.co.uk/History.html
Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.twocitiesboatrace.co.uk/History.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on River Irwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Irwell. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thelowry.com/aboutthelowry/aboutsalfordquays.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222235927/http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk:80/manchester/salfordquays.htm to http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/manchester/salfordquays.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Irwell. 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/20110414100931/http://www.une.edu.au/library/eskillsplus/sample_article.pdf to http://www.une.edu.au/library/eskillsplus/sample_article.pdf

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) 01:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Length and source

By my own measurements (i.e. original research on my part so cannot be included in the article), the length of the river from its traditional source - Irwell Spring - is 63km / 39 miles to the point at which it is subsumed in the Manchester Ship Canal and a further 13km / 8 miles to the point at which the Ship Canal/Irwell meets with the Mersey. The article describes the Irwell as extending to its confluence with the Mersey but employs a figure which relates only to the non-canalised part of the river (the reference is in a speech bubble in a community newsletter and doesn't go into any detail as to where the figure of 39 miles arises but it does match mine). Incidentally another headwater provides a marginally longer length (just 50m) than that from the spring - and anomalously, the spring does not connect with the watercourse itself on Ordnance Survey maps of any vintage. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]