Talk:The Broads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


The Broads is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Why are some links in bold? --Brion 02:01 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Because I am trying to highlight the Broads (lakes) vis-avis the villages/towns. Is there a Wiki convention that prevents me from doing that? User:Renata

None at all, but I find it helps to include a brief note explaining ad-hoc tyopgraphical conventions to the reader. I've added such. --Brion 06:03 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Did sea levels really rise? That doesn't seem very likely to me. - anon

Is that some kind of denial of global warming?? 80.3.128.5 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Depth of Broads

I was on the Broads today. Does anyone know their depth, or the depth of the channels? —Christiaan 22:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found this http://www.livinglakes.org/broads/ which says they're "mostly less than four metres deep" —Christiaan 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map + Flows

It would be great if someone could get a map up on here. Also I heard something about how the rivers are all tidal running to and from Great Yarmouth, in places at a higher level than the surrounding land (hence the historic use of windmills to pump water into them from the land). Anyone know better details or good sources of reliable info? — 80.3.128.5 13:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water area/navigable area

Some of the information on this seems inconsistent. We say:

The total area of the national park is 303 km², with over 200 km² of waterways ... These 18 broads provide approximately 4 km² (990 acres) of water for navigation.

Are we really saying that only 2% of the water area is available for navigation. That strikes me as far too low. And 4 km² really isn't very big, I would have guessed Breydon Water on its own would be bigger than that. -- Chris j wood 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just check the source for the over 200 km² of waterways, and it actually says over 200 km² of navigable waterways. So we have two contradictary statements here. As the 200 km² claim is sourced, and the 4 km² is not, I am (for now) removing the latter. -- Chris j wood 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No it didn't. The source actually says over 200 km of navigable waterways, which is quite different. Correcting again. -- Chris j wood 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this means an average width of 20M over all navigable areas, to get 4 km², don't think it's THAT far out but maybe a bit.

[edit] Is it a National Park?

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act of 1988 made the Broads Authority into a Special Statutory Authority which gave it parity with national park authorities. However, it is not a National Park! -- 88.111.11.207 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above from the article itself, as I think a discussion here is more appropriate. I'm torn two ways. Past experience makes me loath to trust anonymous contributions too far. But I cannot find anything that definatively states the the Broads are a National Park. If it isn't then our article title is misleading and needs changing. Anybody know more?. -- Chris j wood 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It has a slightly different statutory basis, it is true. But on the Broads Authority's Website it says that it has the "status of a national park", whatever that means. Lots and lots of government sources (including Ordnance Survey maps) call it a National Park. It is true that the statute doesn't specifically use those words, but for certain purposes it provides that it is considered to be a National Park. Morwen - Talk 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
AIUI, the Broads does not have National Park status, in which case this article should be moved and edited. It is *treated* as a National Park, and to all intents and purposes it is identical with one, however it was created under a separate piece of legislation. In numerous different cases, you can find reference to "National Parks and the Broads", implying it is not one itself, but treated alongside them. Also, on the Broads Authority's website [1] it states,
These duties are similar to those of Britain's national parks and by creating a Special Statutory Authority the Government recognised that the Broads needed the same level of protection as the national parks of England and Wales. The Broads benefits from being part of a wider family of specially protected areas, including the national parks, yet also has the advantage of its own tailor-made legislation in order to deal with specific issues in the Broads, notably the protection of navigation interests.
which clearly suggests (in a rather round-about way) a distinctively different status to the other National Parks. DWaterson 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Try reading Schedule 3 of the 1988 Act [2] and in particular section 2. --Henrygb 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The Broads National Park → The Broads – As per the discussion above, The Broads is not strictly a National Park, it is only treated as one. It was created under special legislation which gives it a status similar to a National Park, but not of one.

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support - Move proposer, as above. DWaterson 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - since it ought to be something like The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads GraemeLeggett 13:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The Broads is common usage, and AFAIK globally unambiguous. People don't usually talk about The Broads National Park or The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Chris j wood 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I see no reason not to follow Arthur Ransome. Septentrionalis 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
To clarify my statement above and comment on naming of the area in question. As a local, I talk of the Norfolk Broads or the Suffolk Broads - the Act in question refers to them as the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. GraemeLeggett 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Water pollution

There is a lot going on to do with water pollution since the end of the second world war in the Broads. Mercury dumping combined with phosphate and nitrate based fertiliser run-off has left the water murky and nowhere near as clear as it once was. It would be nice, if anybody knows more about this topic, to get a section in here. Details of the Clearwater 2000 project that took place in Barton Broad would be good too. I'm just starting a dissertation on this so if nobody adds anything about it in the mean time, then I should be able to add some good stuff within a year or so.

[edit] Merging Norfolk/Suffolk Broads in here.

As they articles on the Norfolk Broads and Suffolk Broads are merely stubs, it seems to make sense to merge/redirect here. (A lot of people say Norfolk Broads when they mean The Broads anyway). Please make any opposition known (if there is none before Sunday, I will proceed with the merge)

Support - no need for three articles on essentially the same subject. DWaterson 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It'll get interesting if they finally decide on a name. Norfolk is pro "Norfolk Broads" for the whole area, Suffolk is worried that the bits in Suffolk will end up in a area officially called the "Norfolk Broads". GraemeLeggett 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged Ratarsed 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hire Boats

Apart from the brief reference I have added there is no mention of hire boats on the Broads. Since these probably form the majority of the boats present and they have a long history going back before WW1 this seems odd.--Hymers2 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)