User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Rivers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
River Len, Kent
Hi, have seen you are creating articles on the tributaries of the River Medway. If you are planning on doing the River Len, please let me know as it would be great to get some content in there about the damming of the river in the 18th century to form the lake at Mote Park - assuming your various paper sources cover the point! Cheers for helping out Dick G (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
River Bewl
Separate page I think, but called River Bewl only, because it crosses a border. You are doing a fantastic job on the Watermills- I leave them to you. In future there are infoboxes to be added to each river- and inline geocodes to be added so they all tie up to Google maps- I hope someone has written a tool to help. ClemRutter (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Added River Bewl, over to you. ClemRutter (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I was looking for good articles for did you know on the main page when I came across yours. Obviously your page is still in development but is interesting, different and I think will be a great addition. So... I wrote the following
- ...that the River Bourne in Kent used to power a dozen mills in its 10 mile length? by Mjroots
This means that the page will be seen by a lot of people in about 3 days... is there a chance we might find some pictures and make it as ready as it can be? Obviously this is voluntary OK? Victuallers (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I can help with loading pictures as if you do it and I tell you how then the copyright issues are easy. I can also search for some copyright free pictures. I hope I havent panicced you. I just want to make sure it "looks its best" I have seen other river articles and not seen one with the water power interest which I think is/could-be great. Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
help
Try the help on the right hand menu and then images ... I got to here Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
oh and your referencing is unusual... will you forgive if i improve? ... Victuallers (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
River Bourne, Kent
Picture added. No worries. Dick G (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Only problem was we we both editing at the same time! Iĺl do it now.ClemRutter (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
East Malling stream
Nice work. I made some more changes & removed the tag. Check 'em out. — Scientizzle 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- By "grid refs" do you mean "TQ 696 574" etc.? If so, You can just move them out of the header lines and into the subsection text. Fool around with it until you find a format you like. — Scientizzle 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
River Beult
Easy task. Write out the first reference in full but include a name="MillArhciev" in the reference tag.<ref name="MillArhciev">Smile</ref> Next time you want to use that source type <ref name="MillArhciev"/>. (Note /).
The books say use quotemarks but I find that name=MlliAcrvhie works just as well. I did three- but left you the others to play with. ClemRutter (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Page merging into River Medway
Simply I think the page would be too long. At the moment we have industrial history, but little on Geography, Ecology, Leisure.
Medway Navigation
I knew you would join in. The symbol set may be ok for canals, but for a navigation I seem to be missing a few symbols- put it on your watch list! ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wealden iron industry and River Medway
I am a member of the Wealden Iron Research Group, but resident in a different part of England. Traditionally articles in WP on rivers have not given the histories of individual mills, but I see no reason in principle why they should not, provided adequate secondary (i.e. publihsed or Internet but reliable) can be provided. My point was that Samuel Smiles work was valuable in its time, but has been overtaken by a centruy and more of modern economic history research. For many years the best source on the Wealden iron inudstry was E. Straker, Wealden Iron (1931). This has been largely replaced by H. Cleere and D. W. Crossley, Iron Industry of the Weald (2nd edn, Merton Priory Press, Cardiff 1995). This has been supplemented by articles in the periodical Wealden Iron published by the Wealden Iron Research Group. I think you will find that almost anything that you find on the Wealden iron industry anywhere is in fact ultimately derived from these. They represent the present state of knowledge. I have recently been researching mills in my own area, and discovering a considerable amount about the hisotry of some from archival sources. Such primary research is generally not acceptable in WP. However there are other ways in which you efforts might useflly be used:
- in uploading material on to the Wealden Iron REs. Gp website
- in contributing to the Mills Archive website
- in writing materail for (I think it is) www.blastfurnaces.com, which is an American site using WP software, but (presumably) accepting original research.
I am watching a variety of articles to which i have contributed, but this is largely to keep inane rubbish out of them, rather than to check the detail of genuine contributions, such as yours. Happy editing! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am also intersted in mills of many kinds, though perhaps less in corn mills than other kinds. I merely sought to highlight the problem of primary research, not accuse you of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only possible problem is that some one else may regard many of the mills as non-notable. Personally I am happy to see lots included, but the wider WP community may take a different line. Let me know if you get trouble on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Michael, thanks for your acceptance of my comments. I was a little worried at putting so much down on "paper"! I can see that there is a need for references: it does make one think twice before putting down blind assumptions! Regards Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it was (mentions serach box on list of refs). I do hope I haven't given you a great deal of work! Peter Shearan (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes! That seems to be the ideal answer - we don't have to go into minute details of every single reference. If a reader doubted that your reference was correct, then he could always go to his local library and order the book! regards Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
River Medway.
Okay, I'll delete. · AndonicO Hail! 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
