# Talk:Woolwich Ferry

Image:LRSMark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It has never been called the Woolwich Free Ferry and far as I know and the cited references do not call it this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 August 2012‎

Perhaps someone should tell the publishers of the A-Z that, since it labels the service as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed they should because TFL and the cited sources (except one odd one) call it just the Woolwich Ferry, the name it has been generally known by for years. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Except it disproves your emphatic claim that the service, "never been called the Woolwich Free Ferry..." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows numerous references to the Woolwich Free Ferry, so named to distinguish it from previous commercial services and to provide some parity with other free river crossings managed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. I have expanded the history section to try to make this clearer. Paul W (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Google actually shows: "Woolwich Free Ferry" 9500 hits "Woolwich Ferry" 155,000 hits.  As I am sure you must know, the ferry has always been known in London as the "Woolwich Ferry".  Most importantly TFL who now run the ferry call it just "The Woolwich Ferry" as the first two references in the article show.   We cannot change the name to distinguish it from something else, we must use the name under which it is most widely known.  I can see no evidence that it has ever been widely known as the "Woolwich Free Ferry". Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In 1889 The Times reported the service opening as the "Woolwich Free Ferry." It may be colloquially shortened, but the "full" name has always been widely used and understood. Looking at the Google hits, I would suggest that it's not as clear-cut as you suggest, since many references are to the "pre-Free" ferry service, pages that also use the full name, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1889!  It is now 2012 and this is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources such as those by TFL, which use the name 'Woolwich Ferry'. Please provide a source which shows that the 'full name' is widely used today.
WP:name says, 'Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by'.  Have a look at the sources cited for this article.  All the quality sources, TFL, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the BBC, refer to the 'Woolwich Ferry'. There really is no justification at all for the current title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
And, as I said, the A-Z continues to use "WFF" in 2012, and seems to have done so as far back as at least 1969, judging from the various editions I have, as was the Geographia road atlas in 1927. In fact, looking at streetmap.co.uk, this is probably a reflect of how the Ordnance Survey treats it in the first place.
Move the page, by all means, but contrary to your original assertion that it, "has never been called the Woolwich Free Ferry," it clearly widely has, and we will still have to acknowledge that. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the page should be moved but I would have no objection to saying that some sources refer to it as the WFF.  The A-Z is a reliable source but not as reliable and authoritative as TFL or the Royal Borough of Greenwich.  I to say that I have never heard it called the WFF and, as far as I can remember, all the signage in the area just says WF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I cannot move the page as there is an existing page in the way which redirected to here.  I will ask an admin to help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted changes by 82.132.246.234 because no sources were given for this change and I can find no evidence of it anywhere.
If this change was genuine please respond here with some suggested sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As part of t he GA review, I revised the map to show the DLR extension from King George V to Woolwich Arsenal (and added same image to Woolwich foot tunnel, replacing the non-free image there). If you wonder why it isn't there, you probably need to bypass your cache. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The history section claims that the ferry became Roll on, Roll off in 1963! So what was it before, all vehicles craned aboard? It was always roll on roll off, but was side loading. The 1963 ferries were designed for end loading but used side loading until the new terminals with link spans opened in 1966. It was at this point that the ferry became accessible to HGVs. Ambak51 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Woolwich Ferry. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140819090909/http://www.newhamstory.com/node/967 to http://www.newhamstory.com/node/967
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) 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)