Talk:River Medway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Illogical order

This article is very "bitty" - it leaps about from one subject to another, and has no proper introductory paragraph. I have attempted to make it more logical. Peter Shearan 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now more than ever convinced that this article needs a great deal of work on it. A river is a complete whole, and cannot be dealt with by having its parts separated from it. IMO it should have a logical, sequential look from source to the sea, and each of its tributaries should be dealt with as they occur. I'm not even sure that all those separate articles shouldn't be merged with this - each contribute to the water flowing down the main river, after all. The River Medway takes up a major part of the entire county - look at the article at the head of the External links! Peter Shearan (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Merging the tributaries into the article? It would make the article on the Medway even more bitty, and much harder to read. Look at each of those articles, and bear in mind future expansions etc. The Medway, like the Beult, had very few watermills actually on the river, but loads on the many minor tributaries feeding it. Apart from the mills on the Eden and tributaries (still to be done), the rest of the mills on the minor tributaries could be covered under a separate page instead of under the Medway. Mills on the Medway itself still need adding too, as does a Wildlife section (see River Bourne). Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alas, no more

"The derelict remnants of the canal's lock at Strood still exist." I've cut this sentence, as the Strood canal basin was back-filled in 1986. Impressive engineering feat to vanish under pile of rubble

[edit] largest catchment in southern england

"It has a catchment area of 930 miles² (2408 km²): the largest in Southern England."

what is the Thames then? or did someone move it? Morwen - Talk 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
the term "catchment area" refers to the entire area from which all the water making up a particular river originates. The Medway catchment area contains hundreds of tributaries and sub-tributaries; the Thames, in spite of being a longer river, has fewer, and from a more resticted area. It is all to do with the relief of the land Peter Shearan 09:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medway

The Medway is not a tributary of the Medway, so should be removed from that category. However, I am not changing this without agreement. Squid 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue - the River Medway joins the Thames before the end of its estuary, and is therefore very much a tributary Peter Shearan (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the Medway originally flow out via what is now The Swale? Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tributaries

I have created a page for the Bourne, and also added the Wateringbury Stream to the list of tributaries as it powered three (possibly four) watermills. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now on the map. Image:Kent Town Rivers.svg ClemRutter (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watermills

I've added the watermills that were powered directly by the Medway. This has almost doubled the size of the article. Would they be better as a separate article Medway watermills? Still have the watermills on the minor tributaries to add in, possibly another 50 mills there! Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss splitting the page

Against: This would be premature. The article is bitty, and badly written, and lacking in material. The watermills stand out because they are well researched and well written. The rest of the article needs to brought up to that standard and then to exceed it. We are at the material generating stage. Secondly, this cannot be done in isolation, whatever we do will need to be replicated on the tributaries and across the county boundary. The Medway is in four wikiprojects (soon to be five), where consistency needs to be maintained, and we haven't even investigated the implications of tidal Medway, and the Medway Navigation.

Further where does the suggested page name come from- surely we need to keep all Watermill on XXriver articles- with similar titles

I keep looking at the River Trent, a B class mid importance article which shows an approved format but lacks precision details and references. I think we should aim to harmonise these two articles first and at that stage we consider the many child articles that are generated.ClemRutter (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The watermills stand out because they are well researched and well written. - Thanks! I want to add the other watermills, but am afraid thay will dominate the article even more than they do already! There are about another 30 or so, not 50 as I thought. I've put a note on the Surrey portal asking whether that portal should be added to the Medway article, as the headwaters of the Eden are in Surrey.
Where does the suggested title come from? I suggested it, seemed a natural enough title to me! I'm not voting for or against the proposal, and won't be offended if the consensus is not to split. I just feel that this article should be a lot better than it is, as it is a high importance article within Kent.Mjroots (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Watermills on the River Medway, Medway Watermills but also List of watermills on the River Medway- but that would not be right see List of schools in Surrey etc. I think the name needs to set the standard for the Stour, Teise etc and be applicable in other counties. Perhaps a question needs to be posted on the Kent Portal page or one of the Watermill pages. Thats all.ClemRutter (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nearly added all the mills now. Article was 11k before I started adding the mills, it's now 46k! Mjroots (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Emphatically for I am not too sure why the wholesale description of watermills came on to this article in the first place! A river, geographically speaking, is an organic thing - a means whereby the headwaters of all its parts reaches the sea. I have just completed a part rewrite of the article Thames Estuary, where the waters actually finish their journey, according to Admiralty charts, and where those waters become completely part of the North Sea. The article didn't make that clear, and in addition it began further upstream than is generally imagined. It also tied in the Greater Thames Estuary which is partnership of all interested parties in the shores of the Estuary. But the latter is NOT the river itself ... The Medway ends its journey when it meets the Thames Estuary and not before.

To my mind what has happened with this article is that all thoughts of the organic nature of the river have been overwhelmed with what man has done along its banks. In addition, most of the entries are historical insofar as I can see, and that again takes away from the River Medway itself. Of course we should mention that one of the uses to which the river has been, and is being, put; but that should be almost be a throwaway: The waters of the River Medway have always been used by man. One such use, throughout its many tributaries, has been a means of using its power. In its 930 square miles no fewer than 30 (or whatever) watermills have been constructed, although many of them have fallen into disuse - or some such explanation, with a reference to the separate article, which I think is essential in line with what I have already said. There are also bridges, some of which are important; wharves; water outtake points; all of which are incidental to the river itself; again man's use of the river. They must be mentioned of course but not to the extent that these watermills are. (Sorry, I am labouring the point but I feel very strongly about it).

I would refer to the way a GCSE exam paper would consider to be essential facts about a river:

Having exhausted all that, we can then turn to what human interference has created along its whole length - so that the need for separation - as suggested above in "tidal Medway" and "Medway Navigation" need not arise.

Finally I am always a bit puzzled as to why the River Stour article has spawned so many separate tributary articles. The main article doesn't mention any of them (although a list box does), yet there are 14 of them, one of them all of 6km long ... The thought of extrapolating that to the Medway is pretty daunting! Again, we are just not being consistent.

I have also looked at the River Trent article; and I see that, as if in a PS, the tributaries come at the end. Yet they are the whole reason for the size of the river! I like the "map" on the Medway article, but why does it start at Tonbridge and finish at Allington?

I should be delighted to take part in any discussion which can try to rationalise what we are doing. Peter Shearan (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be for splitting the article. The mills info is well worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia but overwhelms this more general article.--LiamE (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment
In reply to Peter, I did say that I thought that adding the watermills to the article would overwhelm it. Man has manipulated the waters of the Medway and its tributaries as a power source for over 1,200 years, so it is natural that the subject should be covered. As to extrapolating all the tributaries, it has largely been done. All the tributaries that powered a watermill (bar one at Aylesford) have been done. The missing one will be added when I can work out exactly where it should go.
I'd like to say that the River Stour article hasn't influenced me at all, I've not even looked at that article yet. So far, I've concentrated on the Medway and Darent systems. It doesn't matter too much about the length of the tributary - compare the number of mills on the Bourne to those on the Loose Stream, which is about half the length of the Bourne. The use of rivers as sources of power should be covered fully.
The map starts a Tonbridge and finishes at Allington because it covers the Medway Navigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The River Bourne article got a DYK because of the mills!Mjroots (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
I see all articles on Wikipedia having a life cycle- start- gathering material- verifying and sifting- applying academic discipline- perfecting each section- floating sections into new articles and thus contraction. This will eventually happen for the mills; is now the right time?
Individual points
  • Thames Estuary I find rather thin- too little gathering material before it was disciplined- missing are the crossing, the cross references to ports, Thames Gateway etc.
  • Missing Medway Estuary- agree. Could be a separate article- so much to say- what do we do about the Swale? (If we go up to Bridge reach- there are three tide mills too!)
  • Other features- the science of Bewl- and water extraction from Medway- needs to be done.
  • Bitesize- fantastic guidance. I know it is a lot of work but this could be typed up as a guidance page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. A further thought-would it be useful to set out some generic ;principles on how to write up all the sections on a UK river. The advice from the project is a bit thin? I am a generalist with a camera- I do appreciate guidelines.
  • Medway Navigation does need to exist because at this stage the river is no longer natural- it is a canal system and this is the classification used by the NRA who produce excelent leaflets, now EA. There is a nice A5 I got from Tourist Infomation Centre either Maidstone or Tonbridge. Also the router I did is part of a project for navigations and canals but not rivers.
  • Stour has not been worked on yet. All the wikitalent has been working on West Kent.
I have looked for guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers and looked at Larrys Creek an FA which I think we could improve! There are others to look at. Even so we must look at the entire basin so we retain the logical consistency. So if a change is made for the Medway it must be applied to the Bourne. I do like the GCSE approach but it only handles the raw Geography element.
We need to establish balance between raw geography and the history, ecology and sociology, reflecting that the Medway is a post industrial river with a heritage of using mills as its motive power, and a unique 'navigation' of a different gauge to UKs narrow canals. Thus having more historical significance to the average man than other rivers.
Yes, apart from the mills I think it is now helpful to run -a little academic discipline (savage)- but compared to Larrys creek there does need a lot more referenced material. The Mills- that are the unique features are a problem as they do overwhelm the rest- I believe that eventually they will be become a FA in their own right- but I think that separating now will have negative effects on the Bourne, Bewl Teise etc., and like a teenage daughter they should be tolerated and encouraged until they are ready to leave home. ClemRutter (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Clem - when I proposed splitting the mills off, I didn't intend this to have any adverse effect on the tributaries which have their own articles. Those articles can continue to develop in their own way. In fact, a few of the other tributaries have the potential to become articles in their own right, but not just yet. I'm not saying that every minor tributary and sub-tributary should have its own article, but some do have that potential in the longer term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My overall comments

I’m fascinated by all the above comments! Since they all arose from my initial comment IMO it should have a logical, sequential look from source to the sea, and each of its tributaries should be dealt with as they occur. I thought I should now comment on what has now been said.

  • Firstly, I realise that what I meant was each of the major tributaries, never dreaming that there was so much in “watermill collection” that would enable us to get down to such detail as a one watermill stream …
  • Mjroots’ commentIt would make the article on the Medway even more bitty, and much harder to read has come to roost, IMO. Looking at the article now through a new reader’s eyes, the article is overwhelmingly bitty: all those headings going on for page after page! (Could not the separate streams be blocked to make them stand out?)And the watermills, as I suggested later, could have a catch-all section saying that they one of the uses to which the river had been put - adding, if you like, that many are on sub tributaries.
  • The Swale has never “flowed” into the Medway. It was an arm of the sea which inundated a valley a few thousand years ago at the time the English Channel was being formed. The Medway and the Thames were part of a much greater river - the Rhine/Thames/Medway flowing into what is now the centre of the North Sea. The Swale was much wider in its earlier life.
  • … almost doubled the size of the article (Mjroots). I have cut and pasted the whole article: 25 A4 pages, of which five are not about mills, one is the reference et al page, the rest - over 75% - are watermills. A new reader will be overwhelmed, and won’t wait for the savage academic discipline as promised!
  • Well researched and well written. I am sure that is right, BUT how about all those references? I thought that as a “new reader” I would look up one of them, and since I know the place, I picked Groombridge Mill. There are three references - 6, 49, 52. Look at reference 6 - it has 50 entries, all from a published volume; 49 has five; and 52, one again a published volume. If 50 mills are all referenced to one book, then why can we not use the book as one of the references? What are we trying to prove? In addition another article’s reference led me to complicated search page, not to the reference directly. It certainly begs the question - what is the purpose of the reference? The use of them is relatively recent - when I first came to Wikipedia (not that long ago) they were hardly used at all.
  • River Trent - the best bit is the use of the Geobox- rivers. That would give us the tributaries, without having to list them all, surely? Each tributary river’s own article would have the same, so that the series of articles - Medway, Eden, et al would then comprise the whole river basin, including its mills (or any other use of the rivers, like wharves). No need to list them at the end, as the Trent article does
  • Medway Navigation: I am sure that the EA call it that, and don’t dispute it. BUT the EA is a bureaucratic organisation, and likes to label things - as I said, like the Greater Thames Estuary, not the river itself. I still think that the map is misleading (and it travels in the "wrong direction! surely it should be from source to estuary?) - a “new reader” again - someone who comes to the article for complete information could well believe that that is the whole river. There are several other organisational names claiming control of the river: the Medway Navigation Service; the Medway Internal Drainage Board; and the Medway Conservation. I am sure there are others.
  • raw geography - as a geographer, I almost heard a sneer, though I am quite sure it wasn't intended! The whole purpose of the discipline is to lay down the basic framework; from that the rest of the information lies on top. Geography, after painting that immutable underlying picture (ie the whole river, including its estuary) and which should after all be the start phase in Clem’s life cycle, moves on to the way man has adapted to it (like the Medway Navigation); changed and then moved on (eg the watermills, nearly all historical facts); and gives us the picture today. That picture starts with the big things and leads through to the minor points (eg Men of Kent) That surely is Clem’s academic discipline?
  • Thames Estuary: I did a recent change here -rather thin - but it was simply to make the point I have made before - that it is part of the Thames; its boundaries (which do not include Tilbury, Gravesend); and that the “Greater Thames Estuary” is not the same thing - in the same fashion that the Medway Navigation is but part of the whole). The ports are mentioned (including those in Essex); as is the Thames Gateway (and are cross referenced).
  • The “science of Bewl” should surely appear on that article; water extraction is obviously required here (eg Southern Water are building a new plant on the Medway).
  • Canal system? Although the sluices/locks (I see that the Xref for that is Lock (canal) ) might in effect make it that, for most travellers on the river it would not be so. Much of the section on the Medway Navigation plan - all straight lines - has long sections of meanders, as does the section through the North Downs (not a “narrow valley”).
  • Last comment! I have been looking for - and found - more referenced material. If, as I said above, the main tributaries (which we would have to decide) are shown, then their mills, and those on their own tributaries, would find a home. Using Clem’s analogy, those latter tributaries would be grand-daughters of the Medway, and each main stream would have its own collection of tributaries listed.

I should like to propose a new opening section, however. I don’t believe we say exactly where it rises in this part (leave that to the details); the map I have suggested is much more worth while than that shown which lacks almost all detail; and a summary of what we are going to say is essential. I am preparing a better section (referenced) on the very meagre historical para; and also a “Culture” section (including Sport?). I have a good reliable reference book to work from.

The River Medway, which is almost entirely in Kent England, flows for 70 miles (113 km) from just inside the West Sussex border to the point where it enters the Thames Estuary.
It has a catchment area of 930 square miles (2,409 km²), the largest in southern England. The map opposite shows only the major tributaries: a more detailed map[1] shows the extensive network of smaller streams feeding into the main river. Those tributaries rise from points along the North Downs, the Weald and Ashdown Forest.
Man has had an increasing effect on the river for centuries. Historical sites abound; it has formed an important transport link; and the extraction of water power and water supplies, amongst other things, have wrought changes. Nevertheless it still provides a busy tourist and leisure attraction for thousands of people.

Peter Shearan (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the watermills do need to come out of the article on the Medway. I'm working on the new article in my sandbox, and take on board the comments about references and the search page. I have an idea about the former, and will look for a way around the latter. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would like to go further- The Medway Navigation should be floated too. It removes the conflict of writing up as a river, and as a canal. There has always been a request for a Medway Valley Path, and this would be easier to do after a separation. ClemRutter (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medway watermills article

I've been bold and created the article! I did find a way round the problem of 50+ references to the same source, at a cost of not being able to name individual pages. I'll work on the Wealden Iron Research Group's webpage problem later. I've hidden the text from the article pending removal - have a feeling that if I delete it all at once a bot will restore it, so I will ask an admin whether there is a way to accomplish this on one go without it being reverted. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I got a friendly admin to sort it, article back to 14k! :-)) Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Medway Watermills article is now four articles. I've split the Medway tributaries into three sections, with splits at Penshurst and Yalding. This gives Medway watermills, Medway watermills (upper tributaries), Medway watermills (middle tributaries) and Medway watermills (lower tributaries). Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medway Navigation & Medway Valley Walk articles

I've separated the Medway Navigation and created a stub for the Medway Valley Walk so do add these to your watchlists. Its been a useful discussion and I think the decisions made, give us all guidance as to the direction to follow. If you want any pictures, (now the weather is improving) or changes to the SVG maps now the focus has moved on, just ask. Its going to take me a bit of time to swap project tags around and build up the articles. I suggest we keep major discussions on this page.ClemRutter (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox River

When looking at the River Trent article, I found this relatively new template. There is an interestring discussion at Template talk:Geobox River, and it is . It also saves the lists of tributaries and makes one look at everything twice - a great means of bringing together all the various facts without missing any. I cannot quite work out the coordinates - I thought I'd entered them correctly, but perhaps haven't read the instructions properly - they are quite comprehensive! So perhaps some kind soul ... I've done the Loose, Len and Eden Rivers too Peter Shearan (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Men of Kent & Kentish Men

Is it just me, or are parts of this in need of redoing? People born in Maidstone (& Tonbridge) may be Men of Kent or Kentish Men depending on exactly where they were born. People born in Rainham (Kent), Rochester and Gillingham are Men of Kent. Possibly someone getting confused with the Medway Unitary Authority, the creation of which has changed nothing in relation to this - same as the thieving of ¼ of Kent by London in the 1880s! Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See West Kent for further details. Cannot discover anything to confirm the popular belief otherwise. ClemRutter (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tonbridge

Tonbridge was spelt Tunbridge until the mid nineteenth century, therefore any usage of Tunbridge before then is not a misspelling. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)