Talk:River Medway/Archive 1

message: This article is very "bitty" - it leaps about from one subject to another, and has no proper introductory paragraph. I have attempted to make it more logical. Peter Shearan 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now more than ever convinced that this article needs a great deal of work on it. A river is a complete whole, and cannot be dealt with by having its parts separated from it. IMO it should have a logical, sequential look from source to the sea, and each of its tributaries should be dealt with as they occur. I'm not even sure that all those separate articles shouldn't be merged with this - each contribute to the water flowing down the main river, after all. The River Medway takes up a major part of the entire county - look at the article at the head of the External links! Peter Shearan (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging the tributaries into the article? It would make the article on the Medway even more bitty, and much harder to read. Look at each of those articles, and bear in mind future expansions etc. The Medway, like the Beult, had very few watermills actually on the river, but loads on the many minor tributaries feeding it. Apart from the mills on the Eden and tributaries (still to be done), the rest of the mills on the minor tributaries could be covered under a separate page instead of under the Medway. Mills on the Medway itself still need adding too, as does a Wildlife section (see River Bourne). Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illogical order

message: "It has a catchment area of 930 miles² (2408 km²): the largest in Southern England."
:what is the Thames then?  or did someone move it?  Morwen - Talk 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the term "catchment area" refers to the entire area from which all the water making up a particular river originates. The Medway catchment area contains hundreds of tributaries and sub-tributaries; the Thames, in spite of being a longer river, has fewer, and from a more resticted area. It is all to do with the relief of the land Peter Shearan 09:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest catchment in southern england 

message: The Medway is not a tributary of the Medway, so should be removed from that category. However, I am not changing this without agreement. Squid 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue - the River Medway joins the Thames before the end of its estuary, and is therefore very much a tributary Peter Shearan (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the Medway originally flow out via what is now The Swale? Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medway 

message: I have created a page for the Bourne, and also added the Wateringbury Stream to the list of tributaries as it powered three (possibly four) watermills. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now on the map. :Image:Kent Town Rivers.svg ClemRutter (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tributaries 

message: I've added the watermills that were powered directly by the Medway. This has almost doubled the size of the article. Would they be better as a separate article Medway watermills? Still have the watermills on the minor tributaries to add in, possibly another 50 mills there! Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermills 

message: I’m fascinated by all the above comments! Since they all arose from my initial comment IMO it should have a logical, sequential look from source to the sea, and each of its tributaries should be dealt with as they occur. I thought I should now comment on what has now been said.
* Firstly, I realise that what I meant was each of the major tributaries, never dreaming that there was so much in “watermill collection” that would enable us to get down to such detail as a one watermill stream …
* Mjroots’ commentIt would make the article on the Medway even more bitty, and much harder to read has come to roost, IMO. Looking at the article now through a new reader’s eyes, the article is overwhelmingly bitty: all those headings going on for page after page! (Could not the separate streams be blocked to make them stand out?)And the watermills, as I suggested later, could have a catch-all section saying that they one of the uses to which the river had been put - adding, if you like, that many are on sub tributaries.
* The Swale has never “flowed” into the Medway. It was an arm of the sea which inundated a valley a few thousand years ago at the time the English Channel was being formed. The Medway and the Thames were part of a much greater river - the Rhine/Thames/Medway flowing into what is now the centre of the North Sea. The Swale was much wider in its earlier life.
*… almost doubled the size of the article (Mjroots). I have cut and pasted the whole article: 25 A4 pages, of which five are not about mills, one is the reference et al page, the rest - over 75% - are watermills. A new reader will be overwhelmed, and won’t wait for the savage academic discipline as promised!
*Well researched and well written. I am sure that is right, BUT how about all those references? I thought that as a “new reader” I would look up one of them, and since I know the place, I picked Groombridge Mill. There are three references - 6, 49, 52. Look at reference 6 - it has 50 entries, all from a published volume; 49 has five; and 52, one again a published volume. If 50 mills are all referenced to one book, then why can we not use the book as one of the references? What are we trying to prove? In addition another article’s reference led me to complicated search page, not to the reference directly.  It certainly begs the question - what is the purpose of the reference? The use of them is relatively recent - when I first came to Wikipedia (not that long ago) they were hardly used at all.
*River Trent - the best bit is the use of the Geobox- rivers. That would give us the tributaries, without having to list them all, surely? Each tributary river’s own article would have the same, so that the series of articles - Medway, Eden, et al would then comprise the whole river basin, including its mills (or any other use of the rivers, like wharves). No need to list them at the end, as the Trent article does
*Medway Navigation: I am sure that the EA call it that, and don’t dispute it. BUT the EA is a bureaucratic organisation, and likes to label things - as I said, like the Greater Thames Estuary, not the river itself. I still think that the map is misleading (and it travels in the "wrong direction! surely it should be from source to estuary?) - a “new reader” again - someone who comes to the article for complete information could well believe that that is the whole river. There are several other organisational names claiming control of the river: the Medway Navigation Service; the Medway Internal Drainage Board; and the Medway Conservation. I am sure there are others. 
*raw geography - as a geographer, I almost heard a sneer, though I am quite sure it wasn't intended! The whole purpose of the discipline is to lay down the basic framework; from that the rest of the information lies on top. Geography, after painting that immutable underlying picture (ie the whole river, including its estuary) and which should after all be the start phase in Clem’s life cycle, moves on to the way man has adapted to it (like the Medway Navigation); changed and then moved on (eg the watermills, nearly all historical facts); and gives us the picture today. That picture starts with the big things and leads through to the minor points (eg Men of Kent) That surely is Clem’s academic discipline?
* Thames Estuary: I did a recent change here -rather thin - but it was simply to make the point I have made before - that it is part of the Thames; its boundaries (which do not include Tilbury, Gravesend); and that the “Greater Thames Estuary” is not the same thing - in the same fashion that the Medway Navigation is but part of the whole). The ports are mentioned (including those in Essex); as is the Thames Gateway (and are cross referenced).
*The “science of Bewl” should surely appear on that article; water extraction is obviously required here (eg Southern Water are building a new plant on the Medway).
*Canal system? Although the sluices/locks (I see that the Xref for that is Lock (canal) ) might in effect make it that, for most travellers on the river it would not be so. Much of the section on the Medway Navigation plan - all straight lines - has long sections of meanders, as does the section through the North Downs (not a “narrow valley”). 
*Last comment! I have been looking for - and found - more referenced material. If, as I said above, the main tributaries (which we would have to decide) are shown, then their mills, and those on their own tributaries, would find a home. Using Clem’s analogy, those latter tributaries would be grand-daughters of the Medway, and each main stream would have its own collection of tributaries listed. 
I should like to propose a new opening section, however. I don’t believe we say exactly where it rises in this part (leave that to the details); the map I have suggested is much more worth while than that shown which lacks almost all detail; and a summary of what we are going to say is essential. I am preparing a better section (referenced) on the very meagre historical para; and also a “Culture” section (including Sport?). I have a good reliable reference book to work from.
::The River Medway, which is almost entirely in Kent England, flows for  from just inside the West Sussex border to the point where it enters the Thames Estuary.
::It has a catchment area of , the largest in southern England. The map opposite shows only the major tributaries: a more detailed map[Map of the Medway catchment area:The River Medway (and tributaries) shows the extensive network of smaller streams feeding into the main river. Those tributaries rise from points along the North Downs, the Weald and Ashdown Forest.
::Man has had an increasing effect on the river for centuries. Historical sites abound; it has formed an important transport link; and the extraction of water power and water supplies, amongst other things, have wrought changes. Nevertheless it still provides a busy tourist and leisure attraction for thousands of people.
Peter Shearan (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My overall comments

message: I've been bold and created the article! I did find a way round the problem of 50+ references to the same source, at a cost of not being able to name individual pages. I'll work on the Wealden Iron Research Group's webpage problem later. I've hidden the text from the article pending removal - have a feeling that if I delete it all at once a bot will restore it, so I will ask an admin whether there is a way to accomplish this on one go without it being reverted. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a friendly admin to sort it, article back to 14k! :-)) Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Medway Watermills article is now four articles. I've split the Medway tributaries into three sections, with splits at Penshurst and Yalding. This gives Medway watermills, Medway watermills (upper tributaries), Medway watermills (middle tributaries) and Medway watermills (lower tributaries). Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Medway watermills article

message: I've separated the Medway Navigation and created a stub for the Medway Valley Walk so do add these to your watchlists. Its been a useful discussion and I think the decisions made, give us all guidance as to the direction to follow. If you want any pictures, (now the weather is improving) or changes to the SVG maps now the focus has moved on, just ask. Its going to take me a bit of time to swap project tags around and build up the articles. I suggest we keep major discussions on this page.ClemRutter (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Medway Navigation & Medway Valley Walk articles

message: When looking at the River Trent article, I found this relatively new template. There is an interestring discussion at Template talk:Geobox River, and it is . It also saves the lists of tributaries and makes one look at everything twice - a great means of bringing together all the various facts without missing any.  I cannot quite work out the coordinates - I thought I'd entered them correctly, but perhaps haven't read the instructions properly - they are quite comprehensive! So perhaps some kind soul ... I've done the Loose, Len and Eden Rivers too Peter Shearan (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geobox River