# Talk:River Rother, East Sussex

Rivers are an organic whole, so that all the tributaries should be included as part of that whole. The waters in the river all become one by the time it reaches its mouth. Hence the merger proposal Peter Shearan (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning on a rewrite of the article in accordance with WikiProject Rivers. This connects with the above, since tributaries should be listed here. Apart from the list, there could probably be a separate paragraph for each of the four major tributaries, when enough information is available Peter Shearan (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why the supposed former river name 'Limen' is linked to 'Lympne' - no explanation is given. I can well imagine that the two words are intimately linked but if their is such a relationship then it needs to be explained in either or preferably both articles.  cheers  Geopersona (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph is nonsense. It is only the lower reaches of the river which have changed their name. The river Limden joins the River Rother just below Etchingham. It is quite arbritrary which tributary should give its name to the lower part of the river - and the the Rother above Etchingham has always been the Rother. So Geopersona's qualms were well justified. Unless someone responds before the end of 2020, I propose to alter the text accordingly.Freuchie (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know the names of most of the tributaries of the River Rother? They do not appear to be named on Ordnance Survey maps, and I cannot find any other sources for this information yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images, POI table
Appropriately understandable
I have assessed the article against the criteria for B-class. The following need to be addressed.

The lead does not adequately summarise the content.  Done
I am rating it C-class for the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues have now been addressed, so I am rating it B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on River Rother, East Sussex. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091003115405/http%3A//www.environment%2Dagency.gov.uk/cy/gartrefahamdden/llifogydd/38291.aspx to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/cy/gartrefahamdden/llifogydd/38291.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821035602/http://rmaidb.co.uk/index.asp to http://www.rmaidb.co.uk/index.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821035546/http://rmaidb.co.uk/maintenance.asp to http://www.rmaidb.co.uk/maintenance.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geso0406bkqr-e-e.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/2_1986798.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.redcourt.dsl.pipex.com/monographs/Volume%201%20-%20EVOLUTION_OCCUPATION_RECLAMATION/CHAPTER%2012.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) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not accept the supposed etymologies of Rother, Rotherfield, Rotherham etc. 
The word "Roth" is Brythonic, cognate with Pictish "Roth", Irish "Rath" and, indeed (by metathesis), "worth" widely in England.
So there will not have been an "castle" as such on Castle Hill in Rotherfield parish - but there will have been a hill fort of some sort and it is very easy for these things to be ploughed out.
My route to this was this way: I was curious about the River Rother from which Rotherham and learning of other Rothers brought me to Rotherfield so I started looking for a hill fort. Two minutes later, bingo on the map and thence to http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/English%20sites/1111.html.
The question which then needs to be asked is why?
I would guess that at one time this sat on the main road  from Eastbourne to Tunbridge Wells via Five Ashes -  taking the watersheds - the road to Wellbrook now of greater importance and hence superceding it.
This 'castle' is a convenient just-short-of-20-miles from several points on the south coast - convenient place for drovers to stop overnight - the fort providing security. [Drovers, whether of cattle or pack animals, typically did about 10 miles a day.]Freuchie (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)