Talk:List of crossings of the River Thames

message: Chelsea Bridge and Grosvenor Bridge are next to each other. Why is one central and the other not? --88.110.189.21 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central vs West 

message: Some locks have public access footbridges that cross the entire river, most have only a footbridge that crosses the locks. If the rest of the river has a weir any footway the weir carries is usually "authorised persons only" and padlocked. At some locks even an "authorised person" has no way across since there is a further section of river beyond the weir, eg Shepperton lock.
So any implication that any lock is a possible "crossing of the River Thames" is not correct and any definition including such is not a helpful one.
(MichaelRD 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossings at Locks 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states "downstream first" in the lead, but isn't the order of crossings as upstream first? Craigy (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as meaning that the list starts with the most downstream crossing and works up but I admit it is a little ambiguous.  nancy (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I didn't see it like that. But yes, it is a little confusing at the moment. I tempted changing it to "most downstream", but it sounds awful. I propose "heading upstream" or something along those lines... Craigy (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct "technical" wording is probably lowest first or lowest to highest but again that could be misinterpreted as being to do with the physical height of the structure so your proposed so your proposed heading upstream gets my vote. Who would have thought it could be this complicated to convey a simple concept?  nancy (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Upstream/downstream

message: Another proposed bridge, the Sustrans Thames Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge has not yet had its (proposed) position finalized, although it seems it would certainly be between the Greenwich foot tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel.  Worth keeping an eye on.  Open4D (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  East London 

message: Would anyone be interested in converting this article to use a table, with grid references, coordinates and hCard microformats, like the table at List of crossings of the River Severn? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like it as it is - without a clutter of coords and with selective pics alongside. Motmit (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tabulate, add coordinates and microformats 

message: There seems to be a history of people removing non-publically accessable crossings. There is no justification for this. This is not a list of public crossings of the River Thames - it is a list of ALL crossings of the river thames. The Thames Tunnel used by the former East London Line is not currently accessable by the public so should that be removed also? No!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.152.206 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Removing Private Crossings! 

message: I've removed the list of former subdivisions that was added for the following reasons:
# The list is incomplete; the entire river from right through London is affected 
# The list has no dates which implies the changes all happened at the same time, which they did not; "ex" glosses over this
# If such information were to be added to a table it should be done through footnotes
# It is excessive detail for this table, which is intended to show a list of crossings of the river, not a history of boundary changes
That said, a summary sentence at the beginning of the article such as "The River is currently the boundary between x, y, z and was the ancient boundary between a, b c" would probably satisfy this. I'll have a go at writing that. MRSC (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you have taken it upon yourself to be an arbiter of what should or shouldnt be in one of the key Wikiproject Thames articles. Your earlier half-baked intervention of converting half the list into tables has left the the article looking a confusing mess and it has also extended the length of the article making it less accessible. (though I admit to adding a few pics to fill the resulting white space) When you plugged in the existing counties this had the effect of highlighting a potential confusion since these changes were only made about forty years ago and many of the bridges go back centuries. I tried to help the reader by showing where they used to belong. Conscious of the need to avoid "excessive detail" I deliberately excluded Greater London where the issue is not of such concern and used a simple expression ("ex") which is sufficient to make the point. But on the one hand you consider that is excessive detail, and on the other hand incomplete and glossed over!! I am afraid your attempt to add an introductory sentence was fairly unsatisfactory - the river separates rather than connects Essex and Kent for example. Fortunately the appropriate explanation already existed in the River Thames aricle. Motmit (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Well done for finding that text! MRSC (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Former subdivisions

message: As an early contributor to this article, I was considerably distressed by the mess I found it in when I looked at it just now. Half the length of the river was tabulated, and half was the original listing. I have no problem with tabulation in principal, although to be truthful I think it looked better as a list. However if the editor who had decided to turn it into a tabulation had managed to finish the work, I would have left well alone.
But it is clearly insupportable to have an article in this state for three months with no clear prospect of it being sorted out. So I have taken the drastic step of reverting the article back to the state it was in before the tabulation started. I apologise to all the other editors whose work I have reverted in the process, but I couldn't see any other way of dealing with this. I will go through all the changes, and try and reintroduce them as appropriate. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - See my above comments complaining of the mess - have been meaning to sort it out but it will be a big job. I started by creating a category of riparian boroughs to help do this but the editor responsible for the mess referred it to the IBBs in the CFD process so it is no longer what it was intended to be. Anyway I have restored the intro text that was introduced because the same editor had a problem with noting the counties that the bridges were in for several hundred years.  Hey ho Motmit (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Motmit and Station1 for assisting in getting things back straight again. I think all the other changes that can be accommodated are now done. Unfortunately there were some that were made by other editors to the tabular format, that I cannot really see a way to incorporate in the list. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored sanity (I hope) to format

message: I see that the following hatnote has been added and removed a couple of times today:
Given that List of Bridges in London redirects here, i.e. this is the only article about bridges in London, I believe the hatnote is appropriate. It would also avoid a disambiguation page with just two entries as London bridges is now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many people assume the Thames is only 22 miles long and the hatnote was a bit odd for a list of around 200 crossings of the Thames rather than the score or so of Thames bridges in London. Moreover London bridges include Lea Bridge, Stamford Bridge Holborn Viaduct etc etc etc so the redirect is inappropriate anyway.  Motmit (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made List of bridges in London into an article instead of a redirect and restored to it the tabular texts for the London crossings that were in here - so our four-letter editors can MUCK and MESS about with that. Motmit (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: Am I alone in finding it strange that the list includes certain cable crossings? There might be justification if the list included bridge heights, but it doesn't. I would also exclude cable tunnels, which come into the same category as (non-public) weir crossings that aren't included. I see no problem with including tunnels which don't currently have any public use - they may return, as with the Thames Tunnel - but let's not include proposed crossings, the list is too volatile. Chris55 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd, but not worth getting worked up about. There are quite a few anomolies but it is probably more helpful to have an open and inclusive list rather than to try to pin it down more tightly so we end up with a very longwinded title and several crossings with no where to go. Motmit (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense if it included all of them, but it clearly doesn't. I'm sure I've been under others going up or down the Thames though I don't have enough OS large scale maps to prove it at the moment. There is an implicit "human" element to the crossings in the title, surely? If not, why don't we include all the weirs and partial crossings that are an impediment to boats. Chris55 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This article should be about human crossings only. If not, where do you draw the line? I saw a goose flying over the river once - that's a type of crossing then. Bazonka (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cable crossings?

message: Every lock on the navigable river has a weir across the main stream. There is a full river crossing at a lock only when the weir has a walkway across it that is deemed safe enough for public access. Examples of these can be seen in the pictures at Hambledon Lock, Benson Lock and Abingdon Lock. Most weir walkways are closed to public access and some weirs have no walkway at all. Crossing at the lock itself is usually across the lock gates, although I can think of Boulter's Lock and Romney Lock which have separate footbridges (but no weir access). So a crossing at a lock should be described as via the weir walkway rather a bridge. Regards Motmit (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article mentions other crossings which are not open to the public, e.g. Thames Barrier. I think that there should be consistency, with either all possible crossings being mentioned (whether public or not), or just the public ones. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is almost entirely of public crossings which is the most useful information for the reader. I dont have a problem with including a few conspicuous crossings that don't have public access provided there is a note to that effect. On the other hand I don't hold any brief for utility crossings. There are a huge number of crossings technically and to avoid creating an enormous list most of which would add very little value, the approach has been to acknowledge such possible crossings in the "Note on the listing". This takes care of service crossings of weirs and clipper services which cross the river at multiple places for example. This is just one of the "Where do you draw the line" issues and the current list with explanatory notes seemz to have satisfied the readership for several years now. Regards Motmit (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock crossings 

message: Somehow, during the great tablification a couple of years ago, the Bakerloo line got out of sequence. It is in fact upstream/South of the Hungerford bridges, as seen in this plan drawing. It is also shown this way on Open Street Map, running from Northumberland Avenue to the northern edge of Jubilee Gardens. Google Maps shows something similar. I blame Harry Beck for the error, as it's always been shown the other way on the diagrammatic Tube Map. I've put it back where it belongs. --rbrwr± 10:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bakerloo line 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of crossings of the River Thames. 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/20151106194132/http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238964&sp=X to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238964&sp=X
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106194134/http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238990&sp=X to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238990&sp=X
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106194135/http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238963&sp=X to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238963&sp=X
*Added  tag to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238967&sp=X
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm looking for any feedback on my changes to List of crossings of the River Thames#London to Windsor where I am fetching relevant data from Wikidata instead of defining it locally. There is a handy link to the Wikidata item (click the pencil icon) if any data needs adding or changing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using wikidata 

message: How does one edit the entry for Benson Lock in this section? The code is . Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Martin! You could edit the entry at . For example, to add the date of opening you can add a statement for . Alternatively, you can manually specify each column by using a parameter like  for column 3. Let me know if you need any assistance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Had never come across this structure before. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading to Oxford 

message: The opening paragraph lists one ford, but I can find no mention of it in the rest of the page. Since this page is already more than just a list, but includes some history I would expect to see a reference to fords in the past, perhaps why they are not relevent today or their replacement by bridges. IceDragon64 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Duxford Ford, in the Oxford to Cricklade section. Bazonka (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fords ? 

message: There are several bare url refs in the tables that ought to be formatted, with a title and a date added to the url. One url is “access forbidden”, others are dead and cannot be marked as such or replaced with a live link. I tried to do this task, but I could not get at the bare url refs in the table itself. I am not sure why. I hope someone who knows where to find the refs can do the work. - - Prairieplant (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are taken from Wikidata. If you click the pencil icon at the start of the row it will take you to the relevant item. Then you can add the title and date into the reference. I am available if you need help to get started with this, just let me know. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare url inline refs 

message: I notice that the proposed KenEx -  Tunnel is not on the list of proposed crossings. Should it be? Abeorch (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  KenEx 

message: There used be crossing between Erith and Rainham (Essex) by ferry. There is a plaque that marks the eight hundredth anniversary of the start of the Rainham to Erith and is one of the least known artifacts in Erith as very few locals are even aware that it that is there and was erected on the wall next to the wooden jetty adjacent to Erith Riverside Gardens back in 1999. The Pilgrim's Ferry began in the year 1199 and was used to allow people to cross the River Thames between Erith and Coldharbour Point in Rainham. There was an unsuccessful campaign back in 2010 / 2011 to try and get the ferry service restarted, as part of the "London Loop". The ferry last apparently ran on a regular daily basis back in 1854. Many years later Ford would run their own ferry until 2004 between Dagenham and Belvedere. It is a shame since the closest foot crossing is the Woolwich Foot Tunnel and the closest crossing by road is the Dartford Tunnel despite the fact the Erith pier and the Coldharbour Point Lighthouse can be seen from their sides of the River Thames. - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:998C:E4F2:A2FD:AE29 (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got a decent reference for that, let's add it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this help?  under "Creek, wharf and ferries" 5th paragraph and  6th 7th para. Rupples (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilgrim Ferry