# Talk:Severn bore

An "official" template has been applied to the link to Russell Higgins' Severn Bore website, for reasons described here.  The best definition that WP has of "official" in this context seems to be here.  By those criteria a website created and maintained by a private individual, and not stated to be commissioned by any authority with jurisdiction over the phenomenon, does not seem to be "official", even if it is recommended by local government. Mhockey (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recommend "fan" sites as being official. Considering the context and scope of the website and the quality of the sources that refer to Higgins site, and considering the template's lack of guidelines, I think that the argument, or if necessary, the exception can be had for this site being "official".
This seems to be a minor squabble over being either a "strict" or "loose" interpretation of the template's usage.
The template Official, does not currently have any guidelines as to usage. Other than an implied euphemism with the use of double-quotes in the phrase link to "official" websites. Neither does it's predecessor Official Site. So referring to the dictionary definition while enlightening, doe not indicate Wikipedia implementation.
Your point on jurisdiction seems akin to other like dichotomies, as in questioning biographies over auto-biographies, and so on.
Argument from authority is no guarantee of veracity nor quality, the material ought to be examined for what it is.
The owner/developer Russell Higgins of the website cites material for the site is drawn from a book who's author was a District Engineer of the Severn River Board.
An examination of sources reveals some small consensus to validate the site's status as being on par or better than that provided by government agencies, themselves.
Google "Russell Higgins" +"severn bore"
The Stroud Council refers visitors seeking more information to the website, confering reliability or confidence in the site's information.
Richard Porter, a Lecturer in Applied Mathematics at the School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, also refers visitors not only to the UK Environment Agency site, but in the same breath, also to Higgins site.
Dr Andrew J Evans of Geography, University of Leeds, gives a referral to several sites, including Higgins.

I wouldn't call Russell Higgins site a "fan site".  It's a really good site, probably the best site on its subject, and I'm not surprised that it's been recommended by the people you mention.  But that does not make it an official website, which implies one created or maintained by or under the authority of an official body.  Mhockey (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Though it is often said, the 'fact' that the Severn has the second highest tidal range is not borne out by modern research which shows that the Bay of Fundy and Ungava Bay in Canada vie for top spot, pushing the Severn into third place. Canadian (Hydrographic Survey), American (NOAA) and British (National Oceanography Centre) sources agree on this point. And I guess that it is always possible that further research will reveal another location or two with a larger range than some of these. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put this comment on the talk page for the "Ungava Bay" article: "According to the article on the "Severn bore" (a upstream wave in England's River Severn caused by rising tides), the Severn Estuary may or may or not have the world's second-largest tidal range after Canada's Bay of Fundy. The dispute revolves around whether Ungava Bay has a higher range than both, leaving the Severn Estuary in third place - but Ungava Bay may itself in fact be in third place. So it is inconsistent to say it has the first or second-biggest tidal range."213.127.210.95 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs a map
File:Gloucester and Sharpness Canalmap.jpg shows most if (1933 but hasn't changed much).— Rod talk 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we get a photo of boats on the bore?  Bullo pill ?
There is a Geograph image with a boat we could use.— Rod talk 20:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a good image for the bore on a small scale, with a RIB in there deliberately bore-chasing. I was thinking more about something like a commercial barge, showing the effect of the bore on pre-existing river traffic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There isn't much commercial traffic until Parting (as it uses the G&S) & if a large bore lock keepers advise narrowboats etc to stay well out of the way ( I say this as the owner of narrowboat currently moored on the G&S).— Rod talk 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There used to be some commercial traffic heading to Newnham or Bullo, short of Gloucester and so not using the canal. So either an old photo, or else something modern with a more modern vessel, probably some sort of yacht, but giving the impression of scale for when people working commercially had the bore (which happens twice a day, to some extent), to put up with twice a day. There's a bit on this in Rowbotham's book. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Something (dock gates at Lydney or Sharpness?) to show the scale of the tide generally
One of the waterside pubs?
I'm liking these three as potential images:

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added the map and one of your proposed images, but I don't want to overwhelm the article with surfers. In the book I have by Rowbotham, he has an interesting story of nearly being overwhelmed by the bore when sleeping in a barge? in a storm on a pitch black night. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Severn bore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do this soon. JAGUAR  14:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"on the tidal reaches of the River Severn in England" - I think it would be good to mention "southern England"
The lead is perfect
"exceeded only by the Bay of Fundy" - you should mention that the Bay of Fundy is in Canada (and USA?)
"at about 700 mph" convert to kmh too
"decreases to about 200 mph" - same here
"a segment of the wave has to accommodates to the ever-decreasing width" - no plural needed
" and its height is nearly fifty feet" - this should be read out as 50 feet (15 m)
" with the largest bores occurring between 9 and 11" - 9 and 11 pm or am?
"about two feet of fresh water below Gloucester" - 2 feet (0.61 m)
" because the wave is travelling faster than the wave speed in water above the Bore (see tidal bore for more details)" - why is bore capitalised here?
"One of the main viewpoints is at Minsterworth at the Severn Bore Inn on the A48" - link A48 road
"The river was first surfed in 1955 by WWII veteran Jack Churchill" - World War II
The fourth and third paragraphs in the Transport and surfing section should be switched around and merged, so that they're in chronological order
Ref 8 is dead
Very decent all around, well written and sourced. Naturally I didn't check the ones I can't access. On hold.  JAGUAR  14:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I have dealt with all the things you mention above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Passed. I'm sure Fram will be thrilled! ;-D  JAGUAR  18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the decision to delete this info is not in the best interests of the readers of Wikipedia :
As a natural spectacle, the bore is in some respects best experienced at night when there is less chance of powerboats travelling with it: their engine noise masks the sound of the wave and their wakes diminish the sight of a single wave rapidly advancing up a smooth river. It can still be seen to some extent in the dark, and many spectators use powerful torches.
One wonders if the editor who reverted it has ever been to see the Severn Bore, or, if he/she has, they were in a power boat or on a surf board at the time they did. I have been to see the Severn Bore more than once and I know the deleted info would prove to be very useful The question is, why are we, as Wikipedians, here ?
To say it`s unsourced is irrelevant, it`s obvious. If everything on Wikipedia which is unsourced was deleted most of it would end up in the recycle bin. What`s a source anyway, and who is to say they`re right ? In my view this is a classic example of what Wikipedia should not be, more here.
As a general rule people should be adding to Wikipedia, not removing, unless the information is known to be wrong. --JustinSmith (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately it's unsourced and original research. The editor who removed it was right to do so. If you can find a reliable source (i.e. not a personal website or blog) to attribute to it, then I'm sure it can be reinstated. Jeni (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you`re missing the point.
By the way, what is a "personal website" ?
What is an official source ?
Why does any of this matter ? This is all subjective and, as far as I`m concerned, irrelevant. 
What matters is what`s correct and provable.--JustinSmith (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just read up on your profile and can see that you have no desire to follow guidelines on here, so I won't personally be entering into any more discussion with you. If you want to change guidelines then there are appropriate avenues for that. Jeni (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, we`ll agree to disagree, but I`d still like to know what a "personal website" is ! The fact it`d be impossible to define just shows what a minefield this whole area is. Technically you could say this is a personal website, but it`s more or less the go to site for a high proportion of all aerial installation queries on the internet and is widely (and correctly ! ) cited.--JustinSmith (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are any websites, or books, that highlight the experience of seeing the bore at nighttime, we can consider whether a reference to it should be included.  But, so far we haven't seen any links to sources at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Severn bore. 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/20160304000146/http://www.gloucesterharbourtrustees.org.uk/pdf/boresurfing.pdf to http://www.gloucesterharbourtrustees.org.uk/pdf/boresurfing.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) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This section does not make much sense to me:
The tidal wave starts far out in mid-ocean. It moves towards the continent of Europe at about 700miles wide/(1126 Km ). When it reaches the continental shelf, its width decreases to about 200 miles wide/320 km, and its amplitude increases. Approaching the Bristol Channel, a segment of the wave has to accommodate to the ever-decreasing width by raising its height. When it reaches the Severn proper, its width has decreased from a 160 km (100 mi) or so to less than 8 km (5 mi), and its height is nearly 15 m (50 ft).
It's not the usually understood meaning of 'tidal wave', nor does the concept of a 'wave' of the given widths eg 700 miles make immediate sense - where does this material originate? cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)