Talk:Windermere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lakes
 Windermere is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The title of this article is incorrect as it is geographically inccurate and tautologous. The name Windermere incorporates the concept of lake as -mere means lake.Dabbler 16:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right Dabbler! I would suggest the title of "Windermere (Lake)", the clarification in brackets to distinguish the article from Windermere (Town) and perhaps other places called Windermere - of which there must be at least one in the USA! So how do you change an article title - anyone? Arcturus 17:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note with some surprise the comment that the lake "is bordered on the south by ranges of hills that provide panoramic views and have long been popular with hikers". While there are some pleasant foothills to the south of the lake, surely north is meant, not south, though in any case can a lake which is so narrow be "bordered" north or south by "ranges of hills"? StephenDawson 16:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are hills to the south-west and south-east of the lake, and yes they do afford panoramic views of Furness and Morecambe Bay, not to mention the Lake District to the north. However, the statement seems out of place here. Certainly there are mountains to the north, but I would suggest perhaps removing this entire sentence. Incidentally, giving precedence to metric units also seems out of place. I know there's a sort of standard in Wikipedia, but in the UK it makes more sense to give precendence to the units that are actually used in society (similarly for US-related articles). I can just about live with depths in metres, but to say that Windermere town is 1 kilometre from the lake just sounds a bit daft. I suggest imperial units be used with their metric equivalents in brackets.Arcturus 17:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see there is lots of discussion about units of measurement at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate, and no individual is going to resolve those different views in a hurry, and certainly not me, and not here. I have a lot of sympathy for your view, but on balance (narrowly) disagree as, although this is an article on a UK feature, it is in an international encyclopedia. I measured the distances on a metric map (all UK maps for many years have been produced in metric): to me giving that as an imperial measurement seems a bit odd altogether, but using both measurements is the best compromise. As it was measured in metric units, I've given those first, as the imperial values are conversions of the metric measurements. (The speed limit still has imperial first, as the metric value is a conversion of the imperial value in the byelaw.) UK society is increasingly using metric, and I am personally entirely comfortable with the town being 1km from the lake, but recognise that many in the UK (almost certainly the majority) are not; the global society, however, is metric to an even greater extent, though I would accept that whether this is true of users of the English-language Wikipedia is not clear. I would agree with your preference if I were writing a guide-book for the UK market, but not in this context. However, I don't feel that strongly about it – I would not revert the page if someone were to change it, for example. StephenDawson 22:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At least UK folks are generally capable of translating from metric to "English units" ... we in the U.S. are flummoxed by the whole idea (except for two-litre bottles of Coke) and mildly indignant that there are people who think differently than we do. The nerve! - DavidWBrooks 15:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An example of where we have proved incapable of translating to metric is in fact the Windermere speed limit which reads "10miles per hour (16.093) Kilometres per hour)" the national parks insist that the 10 miles per hour means nautical miles but the metric equivalent would be 18.52kilometers per hour. and the bylaw would read 10 mph (8.68mph) this has led to confusion about what the speed limit actually is as can be seen in the main article where the writer has seen a totally different meaning to 10 miles per hour. Andy40329 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(== Photos ==

Three pictures of the lake is, IMHO, pushing it. They're all very nice, but kind of repetitive. Anybody else think so? - DavidWBrooks 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Yes, I would agree. With the traditonal skin one of the pictures overlaps the margin as well. Also, as I've commented before, the use of the metric unit kilometre does seem way out of place here. Anyone object to me changing distances to miles with km in brackets? Arcturus 19:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I added the top picture because neither of the previous two really showed much of the lake layout. On reflection, I also think 3 is excessive, but decided to leave the decision of which to delete to someone who (a) feels more strongly about it, and (b) isn't one of the photographers (to dissuade photonepotism). Next time I will remember to post a note to that effect :) --Jmstylr 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I think three images is not excessive. I've tried to fix the formatting issue. Lupin 21:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the cloudy day photo needs to go, it may reflect our weather well, but it's so dreary. BigglesPiP

Contents

[edit] Lake monster?

I've lived out on Ferry Nab for almost 20 years now, and I aint never seen no monster in that there lake. Nor have I ever met anyone who claims to have seen one, just the odd person who wants a Nessie of their own. There are plenty of Frog men go diving here, but most of them are fairly human. If I don't see some citation of a proper legend style monster I'm deleting the section. PiP 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it's become an eel like creature now (pike IMO), there must be two, something keeps leaving black greasy hand-prints under the waterline of boats. And on the deck in the case where a boat is sailing with quite a list. PiP (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MV Swift

What happened to the MV Swift? Should this be referenced ? Obrienaj 08:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It corroded, very similar to the Tern PiP (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was Move Duja► 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Windermere (lake) → Windermere — The lake is the original and most common use of the term —Reginmund 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - as nominator. Reginmund 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - there are a chunk of other places at the Windermere page, including one Florida site that has gotten publicity in the US because of celebrities living there. I don't think there's any confusion in having it this way (instead of having a Windermere (disambiguation) page). - DavidWBrooks 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Weird - I didn't know until making the above note that there *is* a Windermere (disambiguation)! Plain old Windermere forwards to it, which is an odd situation. - DavidWBrooks 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - this is, after all, the name sake of all the others (including the neighbouring town). David Arthur 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose To avoid confusion with the town, Windermere, Cumbria, which comes to mind as well as the lake, and articles on the disambiguation page. Tbo 157talk 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to Support based on the evidence provided in the discussion below. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Although, I thought Lake Windermere was the more common name for it. Epbr123 07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom. I am supportive of the 'primary usage' argument, but 'Lake Windermere' would surely do the trick just as well per Epbr123. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Support for reasons as given by the nominator, but surely, as others have noted "Lake Windermere" is by far the most usual and common name by which it is known. I suggest the proposed name change by altered accordingly.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Support and Comment (changed opinion): In line with revised comments in the discussion below: the lake should be renamed "Windermere" as this is the name given on the Ordnance Survey maps as well as various official local council websites (all verifiable and capable of being cited). It therefore constitutes the official name for the body of water. The name of the town should be "Windermere (Cumbria)" in line with other similar dab cases. Dab pages must be revised if necessary.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "original" doesn't generally carry weight in page naming. Dekimasuよ! 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as per discussion I added below - lake is most generally known as plain "Windermere". Follow pattern of Buttermere. PamD 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I would like anyone voting to please note that the town in Cumbria has 2,295 people, the town in Florida has 2,019, the place in Seattle is let alone a neighbourhood, all of the places have been named after the lake. Windermere is also a part of English heritage considering that it is the largest natural lake. it is also the primary (and only) usage on Britannica[1] Reginmund 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When I think of Windermere, I think of both the town and the lake. If I typed in Windermere, I would expect to see the disambiguation page. Tbo 157talk 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think that the town should have a higher rank above the lake. After all, the town was named after the lake and not the other way around. Reginmund 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree but don't you think calling the article Windermere (lake) would be easier for users to differentiate between the town and the lake. This wouldn't give either the town or the lake a higher status. I think Windermere should simply direct to the disambiguation page, where the lake is at the top. Not everyone searching for Windermere would be looking for the article about the lake. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But this is why we have primary uses. That is why such cities as Birmingham and Cambridge go directly to their primary uses and not Birmingham, Alabama or Cambridge, Massachusetts. Or how about this, since the town is so important considering that it is a destination for travellers to the lake. We could have Windermere go directly to the lake and have a link to the town above the link to the DAB page. It worked for Birmingham. Reginmund 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose that the name should really be changed to "Lake Windermere" as that is the primary name by which is it known in the UK. The other issues about disambiguation pages then become moot. I suggest this alteration to the proposal would solve the problem as well as defuse any potential contentious issues about places having the same name.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "Lake Windermere" is that it is tautologous and generally understood to be incorrect. It would also strike up some confusion as to what was named after what. Reginmund 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Tautologous, such as, for example, Bredon Hill#Trivia, and Pendle Hill#History, both of which are supposed to mean mean "hill hill hill"? In which case, I don't think something being tautologous should rule it out on a priori grounds. In terms of it "generally understood to be incorrect", I take your point, but there are, nevertheless, quite a few refences to it as "Lake Windermere" (sometimes alongside other variations) around: see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], to name but a few. If a more authoritative source can be found that states "Windermere" is the correct name, then so be it, and I would be happy if it were found. But on the basis of wikipedia having to reflect actual usage, rather than prescribing correct usage, it isn't as clear-cut as it could be at the moment, that "Lake Windermere" can be so lightly dismissed as an alternative.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless the aformentioned hills have been accepted into the English lexicon as correct, there is no reason that they should not stay. However, I found an opinion on Windermere's nasty appendage[8]. Reginmund 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
...at an article titled "Journeying Through Time on Lake Windermere." — AjaxSmack 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it points out that stricly speaking it is incorrect. Rather it be a correct title page than a colloquialism? Reginmund 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Incorrect" is a reach since mere is arguably only a regional term. Maybe etymologically redundant is better but it is something that sometimes occurs, notably with toponyms originally from other languages (e.g., River Avon, Caloosahatchee River, Mekong River, Tannu-Ola Mountains, and others mentioned above). — AjaxSmack 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it says "incorrect" on the site. I don't know about the others. That is one of the reasons that Sahara is not a "Sahara Desert" Reginmund 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that "Lake Windermere" may be incorrect but I still think its worth keeping the article at its current location to avoid confusion with the town and numerous other cities. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Then what would you say is the most common rendering of "Windermere"? For names such as Birmingham, it may be ambiguous with the city in Alabama, however it isn't disambiguated. Reginmund 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, wikipedia is inconsistent on this issue, partly because it's not a clear-cut matter; we're not going to find an "objective", "correct" way to proceed. Here's a question that will help me decide: Is there an overwhelmingly common usage in towns around the lake itself: Is it regularly called Lake Windermere (or Windermere Lake) thereabouts, or just Windermere? - DavidWBrooks 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know about the towns in Cumbria because I live in London but here, the lake is just refered to as "Windermere". In fact, I didn't know that there was a town next to it of the same name. Reginmund 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Windermere is the name of the lake, and of the town. It is a "well known fact" that "there is only one lake in the Lake District" - Bassenthwaite Lake. See [9] for the National Park Authority info about Windermere, named as such. I'd support calling the lake's page "Windermere", with link to a dab page, and calling the town's page "Windermere, Cumbria". This is the pattern at Buttermere. PamD 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked the OS maps of the area, and, going by them, PamD is correct. Therefore, I withdraw my suggestion that Lake Windermere might be an alternative usefully considered (I've struck it out, above). It should be "Windermere" with suitable link to a dab page, and the town should read "Windermere, Cumbria", in line with other similar cases, and also as suggested by PamD.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Windermere, Cumbria could refer to the lake or the town. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Then one has suitable dab notices at the top of each page.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with PamD. Reginmund 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the evidence presented, I also agree with PamD. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.