# Talk:River Witham

A couple of photos would be good,  - BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added one, but was thwarted in my attempt to get to Bardney. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done already some good photos, added a gallery--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone see anything that would need to be changed before nominating as a GA?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have created a push-pin map for the article, which you may wish to incorporate as your route map only covers the navigation. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Updated the Geobox, with flow data, co-ords, catchment area and etc (all of which were missing), and added the map. I set the mouth to 'The Haven' as described in the lead, although that is different to original Geobox which had it as 'The Wash'. Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Going through the GA process has reminded me that the etymology of Witham is still without an authoritative explanation.  Here are some hits off the web that are fun, but not authoritative:

The old name was Wimme, Wemme (AD 1086). A possible explanation is a relation with old Saxon wemmian = 'bubble up', old High German wimmen = 'to move', modern Dutch wemelen = 'many movements, to swarm'.  So: Witham=moving waters.
It is thought that the River Witham is so-named, most probably from an original British or Druidical name: (‘Wye’ or ‘Gwy’, meaning river – ‘Ham’, ‘Holme’ meaning home)
the river Witham ...derives its name from the numerous willows growing on its banks
The name Witham is Saxon in origin and remains unchanged in spelling.  - for the town in Essex
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Could the concerns about the lead that led to the tagging be clarified? Thanks to all involved for their attention to this article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on this tag, and those relating to lists and the image gallery can be found at User talk:Khazar2/Archive 10#River Witham, thought it would be useful to add the link, so that we can follow the discussion. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead and removed the tag. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A banner has appeared saying that the image gallery 'looks like an image gallery'.  I don't understand the criticism of the gallery.  Why does Wikipedia have gallery structures if we are not supposed to use them?
From the policy linked to in the banner:

However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images
However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.
The gallery illustrates, in order, the varying nature of the landscape through which the Witham flows.  It is essentially a trip along the river from Lincoln to Boston.
The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
Hence the inclusion of the former ferries, the Sustrans footpath.  The restriction to navigation of the Gloryhole right at the start of the trip is of huge importance.  It is mentioned in the text, and needed illustrating.  By doing so in sequence and next to the image of the size of Brayford Pool I had hoped to get over the impact it has.  Every other picture from 5 mile house onwards is of a wide, accomodating river, emphasising just what a bottleneck is the initial passage through the town.
Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery,
And aren't they?  I have expanded them to make it more obvious
and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).
Brayford Pool and River Witham, Lincoln-Boston - is that not a big enough clue?  I have made it more idiotproof
Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images
A lot of care went into hunting Geograph.co.uk for images that were typical of those aspects of the river.
I have removed the banner.  If there is still a problem could we discuss it here first?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing the title 'History of navigation' to just 'History' so we can link in things like this idea.  What do people think?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 'History' is a better title. I've been WP:BOLD and changed it. I am just not sure what you mean by 'link in things like this idea'. I generally cover the actual history of the river in the history section. Historical buildings which are near the river get mentioned in the Course section, which provides geographical context, unless of course their development was integral to some development of the river. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I feel that it confuses the river articles to refer too much to the surrounding landscape.  But that link, and some of the recent comments by Francis Pryor, suggest that the river itself, in the landscape, may be partly responsible for the high concentration of medieval holy sites.  Severall archaeologists have hinted that the witham valley was a swamp, with raised wooden causeways.  The distinctionbetween land and river would have been less pronounced than today.  Those in turn had votive locations at the edge of the water, hence the large numbers of broken weapons 'sacrificed' into the water (not just as Fiskerton, but all the way down).  The more interesting claim is that each of the medieval abbeys marks the location of a causeway end from the iron age. I'm still hunting for a decent ref, not just TV programmes. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks interesting: Time and Tide. The Archaeology of the Witham Valley. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source for the mouth moving from Bicker Haven in 1014? A quick search of the net reveals that Wikipedia is the main source for this, and it is difficult to find much that does not link back to Wikipedia some how or other. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the following:

The Witham's course is one of the strangest of British rivers,
It has had a citation needed tag since July 2018, and I cannot find any reference that supports it. The only unusual thing I can think of is that it flows northwards and then turns to the south-east. This is hardly unusual, as two other local rivers do the same. The Trent flows south and then north, while on a smaller scale, the River Glen flows south and then north-east. I am sure there are many more. 
Despite reading loads of stuff on glaciation, I have been unable to find anything that mentions glaciation and isostatic rebound diverting older rivers, so have marked that with a citation needed tag. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob, the course of the Trent/Witham during the Pleistocene was heavily influenced indirectly by glaciation, with diversions of the proto-Trent through the Ancaster and Lincoln gaps. I have on my bookshelf a weighty tome 420+ pages, entitled the Quaternary of the Trent which describes in great detail the changes in the course of the two rivers. Give me a bit of time, and I will try to find a specific reference page for this, the index of the book has 40+ pages for the Witham so it may take a while...Jokulhlaup (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A figure is given in the infobox for the length of the Witham (132km / 82 miles) but no source is given for that figure. Due to this uncertainty I have, as with some other watercourses where dubious lengths have been asserted, painstakingly measured its length on online 1:25,000 scale OS mapping using a digital tool and determined it at 148.7km / 92.4 miles - I'd be confident of the accuracy of the figure to within 0.5%. This is of course original research on my part so cannot be included in the article but it does at least give an idea of what a true figure should look like if and when an editor finds a suitable reference out there! cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that the river has had different names over different stretches.
In the section "history" the text (quoting a bizarre 1896 source) says "However, it was known as the Grant Avon in Ancient British times, meaning divine stream, and the fact that the main town on the upper river was Grant-ham may support this". This is nonsense. "Grant" in this context means "gravelly" - whence also the name Grantham (and Grantchester and the river Grant(a) now called the Cam).
I am sure that the whole river has NOT been called the Witham until relatively recently.
I would not be at all surprised that the section by Lincoln would be called Lindis.  Freuchie (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)