Talk:River Parrett

message: I'm not sure about the tributaries. River Cary is mentioned in the header, but not in the list of tributaries, or on the river template. River Brue is mentioned, but links to the Castle Cary - Glastonbury - Highbridge River Brue, which has its mouth near the mouth of the Parrett, but is hardly a tributary. River Isle is mentioned on left bank, but is on same side as River Tone and Taunton Canal. Any comments, or shall I alter it? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me that added the Geobox (about a year ago) & I may well have made errors, so as far as I'm concerned feel free to go ahead & change it.— Rod talk 11:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an error in the River Cary article, which I've now changed. The water from the River Cary is now diverted into King's Sedgemoor Drain which joins the Parrett at Dunball. The Cary originally joined the Parrett near to the River Tone.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It's Template:Geobox River rather than a simple Infobox - probably a problem with the box code if it is happening to other rivers. User:Caroig created them & understands the code - probably worth dropping them a line to ask if changes to the geobox would have produced this effect. Could also be a server problem as the main server has just been locked. Seems to be fixed now— Rod talk 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I have moved the times for Nov and Dec to 2 hours later, as that corresponds to the tide tables.Bob1960evens (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tributaries

message: A lot of progress has been made on this article recently. It having been assessed initially as Start-class, then C-class and now B-class; and it is probably not far off GA-class, but I guess it needs some more work and a period of "stability" before it can be considered.
I was planning to add a section/subsection on bridges, as particularly downstream, over time, these defined the limit of navigation; and downstream the Parrett had loops that were removed by "cuts". So I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers - which suggests that bridges (and loop removal) could go in a section called "course". However, that leads to further "difficulties: this article appears to be internally consistent, but it almost totally "ignores" these guidelines; and is different in structure from, e.g. the River Severn, another B-class article, which possibly conforms much closer to the guidelines, but has a different balance to this article. Interestingly there are very few GA-class River articles and the three that I have looked at don't follow the guidelines all that closely, i.e. :Category:GA-Class River articles. So the "24,000 dollar" question is, do we have an appropriate structure?Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that this article has improved greatly. I would argue for the use of the UK guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers to enhance consistency (having supported the development of those guidelines I would say that!). If the guidelines don't work for a particular river they can be ignored or, more appropriately, discussed to improve the guidelines for others. I don't think the rivers at :Category:GA-Class River articles can be used as comparators as non of them is in the UK. I would look at River Avon, Bristol as a possible comparator with various uses (navigation etc) and changes of course over the years. Why don't you put the issues onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers or for wider discussion onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography to help achieve consistency?— Rod talk 08:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rod. I will sit on this for a few days so that I can clarify my thoughts; but I do like those suggestions. Also, I'm tempted, in the case of this article to start at the mouth and go upstream - another reversal of guidelines.Pyrotec (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the guidelines suggest the course section should go downstream, they suggest that the lists of tributaries, settlements and locks/weirs/etc should go in the upstream direction, so it may not be so unreasonable to go upstream.Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format / Structure 

message: The section covering the river's course has two problems. It doesn't cover the whole river, it only goes as far as Langport, and it is also backwards - describing the course from mouth to source. This means that Drove Bridge is described as the first bridge, whereas it should be the last. See River Thames, River Severn (which doesn't describe the actual route but still lists tributaries from source to mouth), River Avon, Bristol, River Mersey etc. --TimTay (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I both (slightly) agree and (mostly) disagree. I see no reason why the River Parrett cannot be described in a direction from its mouth travelling upstream. That was the way I was intending to do it -see "Format / Structure" above. If it upsets you that much, we can reverse the order of the River Thames and River Severn articles!!!! They are obviously sub-standard in this respect, i.e. navigation is virtually ignored in both articles, yet it has been vitally importance for millennia. Langport was in effect the limit of navigation for reasonable sized boats, even allowing for transhipment  at Bridgwater Town Bridge.Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall I go and change the Nile, Amazon and Mississippi while I'm at it? I am more than happy to reverse the existing text in this article, but would need help to add extra information about the river between its source and Langport. --TimTay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the offer, but I don't see any need to reverse the order; and none of those articles are GA-class. My presumption is that this article will go for GAR when it is considered ready. There is only one GA-class river article in the UK and that is River Irwell. There are only eight in total :Category:GA-Class River articles. I suspect that I would be willing to award GA-class to this article, as it is currently written, provided it meet the relevant criteria, if and when it goes to WP:GAR. (I'm currently doing my 25th & 26th GARs at the moment, so I have some experience of this process, but not as much as some other reviewers).Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The four FA class river articles (White Deer Hole Creek, Larrys Creek, Balch Creek & Johnson Creek (Willamette River)) and the three GA class river articles (River Torrens, Columbia River & River Irwell) that I can see all describe river course from the source to the mouth. Describing the course of a river as anything but source to mouth is backwards and counter-intuitive. Give the precedent set by the FA/GA articles I think it should be properly described in this article. What do other editors think? --TimTay (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is good this debate is occurring before GAR nomination. I would suspect any reviewer reading this & possibly looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers (which I pointed out in the Format/Structure discussion above), would ask the same questions. I am not aware of anything specific to the Parrett which would argue for anything other than the direction of flow to be the order for the course - but I'm always open to being convinced. I would be happy to help with the course between it's source & Langport & don't think it would be too great a piece of work to change the current text in the Course section - we could do this in a sandbox if people didn't want to "mess up" the article during the process.— Rod talk 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone read these articles, including this one, or this is abstract theorising? The section in the River Parrett, called "Course" is all about obstacles to navigation, i.e. bridges, shoales, etc; and a perfectly logical argument can be made for considering up-stream or down-stream passage. It happens to be written from a up-stream passage, as is the schematic map. This particular section bears no relationship to the sections on "Course" in the other rivers articles, which is why I suspect no one has read them. The guidance Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers is an honest attempt by (almost) one editor to provide guidance on the topic; and much of it exists only in bulletpoint form. There is very little discussion about it in the associated talk page and it would be very easy to pick holes in it (I do not wish to do so here). I certainly don't consider the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers sufficient or even adequate to ensure an article on e.g. the Thames or the Severn got through GAR or FAC. The four FA-class articles almost totally ignore shipping, but three of them consider recreational use, such as canoeing, so they set no precedence. The River Torrens only discusses bridges in Adelaide. All of them are good articles, but they are all different. I see no reason why the current "course" section cannot remain in the article as it is, but the title is wrong - it is about navigation and river crossings. What is needed is a section on "river course" as per the FA and GA; and a major expansion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers, its good and honest, but not really fit for purpose.Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your comments on the difficulties for shipping etc - should that material be in the subsection entitled "The Parrett Navigation"? I will have a go at a first draft for course in a Sandbox & let you comment before including it in the article.— Rod talk 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the course section following discussions we had in August, and used the upstream direction because the guidelines suggest that tributaries, settlements, locks and weirs should go in that direction. Also, I have the information to write the article in that direction, and it seemed easier to add more to the end as I found out further details than to add it to the start of the section. I am aware that the next section contains a number of mills, but have not yet obtained adequate documented sources to add that information. The alternative (for me) to starting at the mouth would have been to start at Langport, and that did not seem sensible. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Could we just rename the section 'Civil Engineering', 'Structures', or 'Features'? Bob1960evens (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these questions can be answered by reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Perhaps the way forward is to remove all of this information from the River Parrett and put it into other articles on say the Port of Bridgwater and/or the Bridgwater Navigation; and then link it back into the River Parrett via summaries and {main}. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater & I think they are relevant to the history of the river. I've now got the kids into bed & thrown together something on the "course", with some of the bits I find interesting. See User:Rodw/Sandbox/Perratcourse & feel free to edit, reject, or plunder for other things as you feel is appropriate. I'm happy to have this rejected in total or in parts as others want.— Rod talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it and its interesting. We could, if everyone is agreeable, substitute that for the existing "Course" section and copyedit it later. Presumably we keep the existing "Course" section and move it elsewhere, under a new name/copy into one of the subsections in the "History" section? Bob's future work on mills would presumable go in the same location? Presumably the schematic diagram has to be inverted as it is not "politically correct" in these intolerant times?Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also read it, and like it. I try to produce the maps so they vaguely reflect the geography, so the mouth is a lot more north than the source. I think the idea of having south at the top is a bit wacky. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice one Rod. It gets my vote. --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course - call me pedantic, but... 

message: This page now seems to be stable following the recent flurry of edits - what else do people think woud be needed before a GA nomination?— Rod talk 09:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the course section needs a few tweaks. Because of the amount of detail on the warehouse at Langport, would that paragraph be better in the (renamed) "Bridges and Structures" section, and for the same reasons, would the Westonzoyland pumping station details be better either in "Structures" or perhaps "Flood Prevention"? Also, do we have any sources for the technical details of the pumping station, the Brigwater trade figures, etc.? Bob1960evens (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with the proposed moves for the warehouse at Langport & Westonzoyland pumping station - do you want to do them or shall I? I don't have anything further on Brigwater trade figures. Do you mean the Burrowbridge pumping station? The bit in course on "Port of Bridgwater" could probably be merged with the section of that name.— Rod talk 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the technical details of the Westonzoyland pumping station, all of which are currently unreferenced, as is the 103,613 tons for Bridgwater trade figures. I was wondering where the information came from. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The info re Westonzoyland pumping station could be refed to Pumping station web site sub pages. I believe the trade figures for Port of Bridgwater come from  but I would have to get it back out of the library to check.— Rod talk 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else for GA nomination 

message: The Stagg/Hydrology reference needs repair by someone who understands it. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this (& doing lots of others). I've removed the Stagg ref & the related sentence & found an alternative source for the other text on drainage engineering etc.— Rod talk 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Being pedantic in this instance, could the Parrett Navigation schematic be improved (corrected)? There are two disused outlets, in parallel, from the dock to the River Parrett, each with one lock: a narrow lock on one outlet, and a broad lock on the other.Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The schematic now shows three locks. Is the one on the left before the docks or after? There is certainly a stop lock after the basin, but evidence for one between the basins is not easy to find. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The set up is variously described as dock and tidal basin or inner and outer basin. My left lock was intended to represent a lock between the dock and tidal basin. I could go and have a look tomorrow (Monday), it must at least 15 years since I was last there.Pyrotec (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a picture of the gates (only one set in view) on page 87 of Fitzhugh (1993) and this is what google maps currently show: 
 Pyrotec (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's another link  it appears more stable than the last one.Pyrotec (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tweaked the map to use the DOCKS symbols, so it is a bit more obvious. If you are not convinced, please revert. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Parrett 

message: Is this a museum, as stated? The Westonzoyland museum site suggests it is not, but is owned by a haulage company. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: says yes but that is a 1985 book so may well have changed. IoE calls it Saltmoor Pumping Station at record but no help on status - probably best to remove the ref to museum.— Rod talk 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the tense, and mentioned most of its contents are now at Westonzoyland. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Burrowbridge Pumping Station

message: Does anyone know the correct spelling, or is this a local term used verablly & therefore either is correct - but we do use both spellings in the article.— Rod talk 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct, and the spellings have local variations. The local OS maps use two-'c's and Williams (1970) uses one-'s'&one-'c'; but any given article should only use one spelling (unless they are direct quotes from inconsistent sources).Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clyse or Clyce 

message: Thanks to everyone who has contributed here and on Wikipedia:Peer review/River Parrett/archive1. I think most of the issues raised have been addressed, but there are still a few which might need more work:
* No reference for timings of the tidal bore - should we just remove that sentence?
* Etymology - as discussed above is there strong enough evidence for the Welsh origin or should we just leave it out?
* Linked Waterways - Is this needed? They are all in the infobox & mentioned in the article. If it is needed should it still be a list?
* Route and points of interest, See also & References - The layout here isn't ideal with the map coordinates, link to Commons & Waterways portal pushing everything to the left - does anyone have any good ways of improving the layout?
Is there anything else outstanding, or new issues anyone can identify? I'm away for the next few days, but would appreciate any comments or contributions as I would like to do the FAC nomination early in January.— Rod talk 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the uncited bits on the tidal bore & the linked waterways. I've closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. Any help in responding to issues raised will be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of what might be still needed for FA 

message: Just saw that this earned its star - congratulations to everyone involved! Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for your help.— Rod talk 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: "During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford."   Well, yes - in its upper reaches it was probably crossed by several fords, as were most rivers.  Do we mean to say "During the Roman era the river was crossed by a paved ford at Ilchester"?  And, if that's right, shouldn't Ilchester be marked on the map?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume this is about the bit in the lead as further detail is provided in the Landscape sub head of the history section. Do you think more detail is needed on this in the lead?— Rod talk 06:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  It just struck me that the sentence in the lead was fairly inconsequential - all rivers would have had fords, of some sort and scale, somewhere, especially towards their source.  Stupidly, I thought that Ilchester was on the Parrett, which I now realise is not the case - so, where was the ford, and why is it significant?  The Landscape section doesn't seem to tell me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some speculation about a ford at Combwich, but I'm not aware of any documentary evidence. As the article says "It is thought a ford, usable only at low tide, crossed the river near its mouth, between Combwich and Pawlett (east bank). This crossing, at the western end of the Polden Hills, was known since Roman times and lay on the route of a Saxon herepath." There would of course have been other crossings nearer the source where it is narrower and shallower.— Rod talk 07:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha!  I somehow missed that sentence, so apologies again.  In that case, could it not say  "During the Roman era, the river was crossed by a ford near its mouth."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but none of the sources seem that definite, and phrases such as "may have been", "It is thought that" etc are not good in the lead.— Rod talk 07:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's up to you of course, but the sentence "During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford" just struck me as a trivial thing to say.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK how about "During the Roman era the river could be crossed at low tide, by a ford near its mouth" which expands the significance but doesn't actually claim it was done regularly?— Rod talk 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky, because that could be done at any time, not just in Roman times.  Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd be tempted to leave that part of the sentence out of the lead altogether.  I've also just noticed: "Many approaches have been tried since the early 19th century to reduce the incidence and effect of floods and to drain the surrounding fields" - although the article refers specifically to improvements by the medieval abbeys, and implicitly at least to earlier improvements by the Romans.  Sorry - I realise it would have been more helpful if I'd contributed earlier!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributions welcome whenever. I'd be OK if you removed the ford in Roman Times &/or reworded the dates in relation to drainage interventions.— Rod talk 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it a little.  Should Glastonbury Abbey be mentioned specifically in the lead, to add to reader interest, or would that over-complicate it?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I only suggested it when I mistakenly thought it was on the Parrett - as it's only on a tributary it's less important.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it is mentioned 8 times in the article, which is why I asked. There is always a tension between labeling everything and keeping the map clear and easy to use. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought... 

message: It is claimed to be 27 miles from the sea to "Oath",   yet the whole river is claimed to be 37 miles long.   These are demonstrably inconsistent.Eregli bob (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this comment. Oath (Aller, Somerset is approx two thirds of the way from the sea to the source therefore the numbers seem correct. A look at any map and several of the sources cited will support the numbers. You say it is "demonstrably inconsistent", do you have any sources or evidence to support this or could you explain a little more about what you think is wrong?— Rod talk 09:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it is 27 miles from the sea to "Oath",   and 10 miles from Longport to Chiselborough,   then how far is it from Chiselborough to the alleged source near Cheddington ?  If the entire river is 37 miles long,  then the answer to this should be zero,  which a glance at the map and also Google Earth suggests is not the case.122.106.205.74 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, that only works if the river is straight. It perfect possible to "draw a staight line" ("as the crow would fly") from Oath to the sea that is 27 miles long (assuming the figures are correct) yet the distance by river is 37 miles. Go a look at a map, or google earth: the river bends back on itself. Pyrotec (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent dimensions 

message: A clarify tag has been added to "The river is technically a highland carrier" which is followed by "as it is embanked and the water level is often higher than the land through which it flows." My understanding is that this is what highland carrier means - what further clarification is needed?— Rod talk 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag seems have have been placed there by Ehrenkater during a series of constructive edits carried out yesterday. There is no article highland carrier, but the phrase appears (in singular or plural form) in the Market Weighton Canal, Isle of Axholme, Witham First District IDB, River Nar and River Parrett articles. Perhaps a red link would be sufficient; why not ask Ehrenkater? Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unable in a brief search to find any independent evidence that "highland carrier" is a recognised geographical term. If evidence can be found that it is a recognised geographical term, then a red link would do; otherwise the reference should be deleted. Will try and check who introduced it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Have now found an independent definition of "highland carrier" http://www.ada.org.uk/glossary.html so will add it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "highland carrier" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. 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/20131005215639/http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/hydrometricregister_final_withcovers.pdf to http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/HydrometricRegister_Final_WithCovers.pdf
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) 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on River Parrett. 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/20140222042740/http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Plea-calm-political-storm-erupts/story-20601268-detail/story.html to http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Plea-calm-political-storm-erupts/story-20601268-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603235219/http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1549&p=0 to http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1549&p=0
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) 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. 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/20110622003110/http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2825&p=0 to http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2825&p=0
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) 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on River Parrett. 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/20110206152610/http://www.wzlet.org/index.htm to http://www.wzlet.org/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223181437/http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/90305/langport_and_river_parrett_education_pack.pdf to http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/90305/langport_and_river_parrett_education_pack.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723014623/http://www.severnestuary.net/sep/pdfs/barker_06_final_project_report.pdf to http://www.severnestuary.net/sep/pdfs/barker_06_final_project_report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619195737/http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/data/meanflow.html?52007 to http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/data/meanflow.html?52007
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603235140/http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3078&p=0 to http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3078&p=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603235140/http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3078&p=0 to http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3078&p=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717073437/http://www.wzlet.org/enginesenginehouse.htm to http://www.wzlet.org/enginesenginehouse.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518080705/http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4205&p=0 to http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4205&p=0
*Added  tag to http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/barrage-save-town/story-20713487-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184747/http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles/naProfile85.pdf to http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles%5CnaProfile85.pdf
*Added  tag to https://lowerlakesholidays.co.uk/bird-watching-in-somerset/
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) 06:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. 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/20080906112851/http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/FR_report_2004-5_floodplain.pdf/%24FILE/FR_report_2004-5_floodplain.pdf to http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/FR_report_2004-5_floodplain.pdf/$FILE/FR_report_2004-5_floodplain.pdf
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) 06:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion