Talk:List of rivers of England

message: The River Foulness is missing from the list. I am unsure where to place it. It flows into the Market Weighton Canal which joins the Humber at Weighton Lock. May be it should go between Ouse & Hull  
Keith D 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Foulness 

message: This list is absurd in nature and contains many absurdities, since it lists so-called "rivers" that aren't rivers at all - but rather are merely brooks, streams, creeks, and so forth. At least, here in North America we understand the difference between these minor watercourses and real rivers. For example, going clockwise around the continent, the Niagara River, the St. Lawrence River, the Hudson River, the Delaware River, the Susquehanna River, the Potomac River, the Savannah River, the Chattahoochee River, the Ohio River, the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, the Colorado River, the Columbia River, the Yukon River, and so forth. To this, we will add the Thames River and the Severn River, for example.Dale101usa (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just because a watercourse contains the words "river" or "rio" in its name does not make it an actual river. We have those in North America, too.Dale101usa (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  From River: A river is a natural watercourse, usually freshwater, flowing toward an ocean, a lake, a sea (e.g. the Caspian Sea) or another river. ..Small rivers may also be called streams , creeks, brooks, rivulets, rills, and many other terms, but there is no general rule that defines what can be called a river. Pterre (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  Can I suggest you look at List of rivers in Alabama (etc) for a more sensible comparison than North America? Pterre (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - This editor tried to change the River article and was firmly rapped for trying to impose a US-only perspective. Motmit (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact this is not strictly a 'list of rivers' but a 'list of main rivers' - a term defined by the statutory body with strategic responsibility for English and Welsh watercourses, the Environment Agency and which includes this great diversity of watercourses. It might benefit from mention of that fact in the intro I guess. I began editing the Welsh rivers page a couple of years ago by deleting a very minor watercourse and was told of that, so then reinstated it. I've since added a few more minor ones. Perhaps the list can be presented in a different form which places more emphasis on the larger 'proper' rivers? The same approach would need to be adopted for other river lists, at least Scotland and Wales for consistency though.  Any thoughts?  Geopersona (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware this list is intended to include all rivers including some of the most minor tributaries. Perhaps though that is only tributaries on main rivers. I have been struggling to find out what the EA does define as Main rivers as this would be quite useful information but so far have been unsuccessful. If you do know the list then please add it to that article.  As for this article it is getting a bit big and unwieldy but is still useful. What I find really absurd though not something worth worrying about is the List of rivers discharging into the North Sea which embraces everything from the Churn to Norwegian streams. Rgds  Motmit (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The Environment Agency definition of a main river is quite arbitrary and can be traced back to the Rivers Conservancy Boards the predecessors of the River Boards, themselves the predecessors of the River Authorities , themselves the predecessors of (part of ) the Water Authorities who later became the National Rivers Authority and who are now the Environment Agency. What constituted a "Main River" originally was simply a definition of which river lengths that the Conservancy Boards agreed to maintain as part of their Flood defence functions. The other regulatory functions (fisheries, water quality, hydrology etc.) assumed responsibility for all rivers, main and not main. For rivers that were not "Main rivers", the relevant local authority had responsibility for flood prevention and river maintenance, a responsibility shared unequally with the riparian owner. Since the time of the Conservancy Boards, some additional rivers have been "Mained"  but the status of a main river has no bearing on the size or significance of a river - it seems to depend much more on the political strength of the local farming community as the original time of maining. Where farmers had their way every little stream was mained; where the accountants held sway, only quite large rivers were mained. I would therefore argue strongly against using main rivers as the determining factor for inclusion - I would much prefer the convention of including those rivers named by the Ordnance Survey on their published maps at 1:25000 scale.  Velela  Velela Talk   20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  I agree with you Velela, if by 'rivers named by the Ordnance Survey' I interpret you rightly to mean each of those watercourses whatever their size. You seem to be especially familiar with the subject - do you know - as Motmit asks - are the 'main rivers' list/s available in published form anywhere (- short of putting in an FOI request!)? Mind you whichever criteria we choose, there will be an element of randomness. I know of one fairly large watercourse in Cheshire (a tributary of the River Wheelock) which is un-named on OS mapping at any scale and which far exceeds in size many hundreds of other named watercourses, each of which would be considered minor by virtually any standard. Cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Regretably, there are no published lists - the defintions of main rivers are held on "Main river maps" which are available for inspection at some Environment Agency offices but which are often very large  and ( I suspect) incapable of copying to satisfy a FOI request. It might be interesting asking though !.  Velela  Velela Talk   08:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: And in answer to Motmit's comment on rivers flowing into the North Sea - having just visited the page - I propose a new page listing Europe's rivers in order of the number of bridges which cross them between source and mouth - those with multiple arches counting more than once of course! And another list for those which can be anagramised into humorous words in any of the Slavic languages - who's going to tackle this one? ;-) Geopersona (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be alphabetical so it can start with the Aa River! Motmit (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdity! 

message: How come we don't have any decent map indicating the main rivers in England or the UK, or just in individual regions? Is it any lack of agreement over the question that hangs above the previous discussion, namely which rivers constitute the principal ones, or are there copyright-related problems which prevent any such map from being created for Wikipedia? The latter seems unlikely to me given what maps we do have at Commons. Some manual highlighting here or here, for instance, could be one way forward, but then how about svg maps? This one looks potentially workable, if much less detailed. Cavila (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've created a map myself, though I'm not entirely happy with the selection (where's the Wye, for instance?). Cavila (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice map but......sometime ago the article was Rivers of Britain and then it was split up into England, Wales and Scotland for reasons possibly known to those who made the decision; which means that the map also probably needs dividing into three sub-equal parts with rivers such as the Welsh Dee, the Wye, the Tweed and the Esk featuring in at least two of the maps each. Nevertheless, a nice map !.  Velela  Velela Talk   12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it seemed to me easier to crop the image at a later stage rather than do things the other way around. Anyway, here's a new one, derived from the previous svg-map. Thanks to Notuncurious, readers of "Rivers of Wales" and "Rivers of Scotland" are already well served by being presented with excellent maps. See also here for what's currrently available at Commons). Cavila (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Motmit (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Map request

message: There may well be a good reason for this but why do we start this list at The Lizard rather than Land's End which is a more frequent starting point for descriptions of the British (or indeed English) coast. Geopersona (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alternatively why not start at the Solway Firth on the Scottish border and go around the coast anti-clockwise to the Tweed on the Scottish border again?  Any takers? Geopersona (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of start/finish point 

message: I'm finding now, both whilst editing and whilst viewing, that given the increasing numbers of entries in the list/s, many of the sections in this article are becoming more difficult to navigate, more difficult to alight on particular watercourses and the wider catchments to which they belong. I propose therefore that we consider how the article might best be restructured. Some time ago, I set each of the watercourses in its sister list for Wales under catchment headings - that seemed to work though there are fewer w/courses for Wales in any case. We could adopt that approach though the nav panel at the start of the article then becomes rather large itself! An interim measure would see the existing section boundaries altered giving us more sections but with fewer entries in each.  Any thoughts?  Geopersona (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the nav panel need not be larger if individual catchments are separated out but not as section headings but rather with emoldened and/or large font text. Geopersona (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have placed a version of the 'List of rivers of England' page at List of rivers of England (proposed change)|. I would welcome comment on it - for or against, provided its constructive! Geopersona (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that works. If you get bored you could always do another version by watershed.:) Motmit (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed re-structuring of article 

message: Please see the discussion Talk:List of rivers of Wales#Small streams - where do we draw the line? A proposal. It is pertinent to this page too and its Scottish equivalent. thanks Geopersona (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-visiting the issue of what to include and what to leave out 

message: Anyone know of a reference for the River Biem which purports to be a tributary of the River Soar in the Trent/Humber catchment? I've failed to find it on OS 25K, 50K and 1" mapping cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the River Biam ?, which flows through Aylestone meadows in Leicester. Jokulhlaup (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Biem 

message: Again, can anyone reference this river? It purports to be a tributary of the River Pang in the Thames catchment, joining the Pang at Compton but it does not appear on the OS 25K or 50K maps though there are one or two 'Roden' place names nearby. cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Roden, Berkshire 

message: Categorising rivers into catchments is not always so straightforward as might first be imagined. There are those rivers like the Yorkshire Ouse and the River Trent which discharge into a common estuary - the Humber in their case. The 'River Humber' (as it is often known) is one of a small group of 'rivers' which are entirely estuarine, they have no non-tidal parts. In restructuring the article, I have chosen to adopt the Trent and Ouse as first-order rivers ie main stems rather than include the Humber as such - it helps with the layout of the article as much as anything. 
Suffolk's River Orwell is the tidal portion of the River Gipping - I have chosen to include them as one river (with wikilinks to separate articles on both) rather than have the Gipping as a tributary of the Orwell.
The Thames and certain other southern English rivers have various distributaries which part from the main river then reconnect further downstream. The most significant of these have their own names and so I have included them.  Though most may not warrant their own Wikipedia articles, I took the line that possession of a 'river name' of their own merited their inclusion in this list since it would assist anyone searching for reference to them and understanding their geographical context. Similar issues arise in The Fens where artificial drainage channels (often going by the name of '... river') cross-link originally naturally-directed watercourses and serve to make the picture somewhat complex.
It is inevitable that in trying to impose order on an assemblage of features which are not constrained by our artificial rules, there will be inconsistenecies. It would be useful to debate these. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catches with catchments 

message: Under the Welland Catchment is 'New River', which links to a cut near London.  This is obviously wrong.  What should it link to? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Link fixed - it now points at New River, Lincolnshire. There is no relevant article at present so the link is red.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also a link to 'New River' upstream of Wicken Lode in the Great Ouse catchment that is not the London New River. Pterre (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That one fixed too. Now points to New River, Cambridgeshire.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strikes me that the London example mentioned by Robert above - presently New River (England) - ought to be retitled New River, London if we are potentially to have articles on several English 'New Rivers'. I think perhaps that the Cambs New River ought simply to be included within Wicken Lode (which is already detailed at Cambridgeshire Lodes since it is simply the minor upstream continuation of that watercourse. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unlike the way Vernatt's Drain is linked to a section of Spalding? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilink problem 

message: I am not sufficiently sure of my facts to edit the article, which presently says
** River Wey (R)
*** River Wey (North branch) (Rs)
*** River Wey (South branch) (Ls)
As I understand it, the N branch is on the left when looking downstream, the south on the right. Therefore the artcle needs an edit. Is my understanding right? -- SGBailey (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me, as long your looking downstream when your looking towards the sea. Jokulhlaup (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: River Wey branches

message: As part of the WFD the EA have produced a list of waterbodies (Rivers, Lakes etc) the files are  WFD csv files
The list is not perfect, but it is accessible and may help with some of the queries raised on this page - the bonus is that it also lists river lengths and catchment areas.
In addition, on the EA website   What’s in your backyard provides an interactive map, where you can check to see the extent of these waterbodies. By changing the 'Other topics in this Area' to 'Risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea' you can then see the extent of the EA Main Rivers, although you may have to zoom in to get them to appear. 
SEPA have done something similar  here but not as csv files just a long list of waterbodies.
Hope this helps Jokulhlaup (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Framework Directive (WFD) list of waterbodies 

message: In this list the Glaze Brook is correctly shown as a tributary  of the Devon Avon. However Glaze Brook currently links to a page about a completely different river near Manchester. Sorry I don't yet know how to change this otherwise I'd do it myself. 86.150.255.84 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reporting the problem. There is no article on the Devon river as yet so I have just red-linked it for now to Glaze Brook, Devon. Keith D (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, but I've now noticed Red Brook has a similar issue, OS Landranger map 202 confirms there's a Red Brook feeding Bala Brook which is a tributary of the Devon Avon but the list currently links to an unrelated Red Brook in Lancashire. By the way while we're here I can't see Scad Brook labelled on that particular map but I'd like to point out that it is nonetheless well worth keeping a place for it on the list because it's significant due to its association with a known pre-historic settlement http://www.dartmoorwalks.org.uk/resource/site.php?SiteID=54 (I mention this partly in response to a comment above from one of our North American cousins who seemed surprised that we should attach significance to such small features in the landscape) 86.150.255.84 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Error 

message: Chocolateer in his edit summary said "traditional Yorkshire ends with the Tees as the border into Durham therefore right of the Tees is Yorkshire and Left is County Durham. Redcar is not the traditional border." That may be so but it misses the point - the choice of Redcar is simply to allow the Tees to feature as a catchment in its entirety. Choosing the Tees as the end of the section and then dividing it into a left and a right catchment made it inconsistent with the approach used for all the other rivers in this list which is why I've returned the list to its earlier state. This list is not an attempt to describe county boundaries, old or new, it's about rivers and their tributaries, a purely physical feature of the English landscape.  thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tees catchment 

message: This is confusing and may require further consideration to accurately describe what is going on between Market Deeping and Peterborough. The main flow of the Welland appears to continue as the Maxey Cut whilst two watercourses (one labelled as River Welland) head off NE to rejoin the waters of the Maxey Cut east of Northborough. Then there's the "River Welland (old course)" - confusing? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welland catchment

message: I added an item and link to the existing article for Land Yeo that flows through Clevedon to the sea. From what I understand Blind Yeo is a flood relief channel for Land Yeo around Clevedon and empties into the sea so isn't a River ("A river is a natural flowing watercourse..."). I've not removed the item yet. 
The neighbouring Middle Yeo seems to be another named drain rather than a river.
Platinke (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Somerset Rivers the Blind Yeo is an artificial relief channel for the Kenn. The list has other artificial watercourses, other than canals, eg the Jubilee River, Duke of Northumberland's River and so on. I woud say leave it in. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind Yeo 

message: There is a note at the foot of the article explaining that the details in the list are obtained from the OS 25K, 50K and 1" maps and that holds generally true. I've become aware that there are some which do not appear on those map series but which nevertheless are named on OS 6" or 25" maps - it would be useful for editors to record that detail, though going back through the material might take a while. Looking at the recent changes by an IP editor to tributaries of Malham Beck/Gordale beck, I also note discrepancies between OS maps of different date and different series - not wholly surprising - but, which is to take preference - the older more detailed map or the more recent one? Hell Gill Sike and Hanlith Gill (Sike) are an example. Geopersona (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing watercourses 

message: The term 'main rivers' is, as has been noted above, defined statutorily and does not coincide with what a member of the public might consider to be the key watercourses in an area. Perusing the maps of main rivers available on-line via the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, shows many significant watercourses to be omitted from the map/list and many trivial* (and often un-named) ones to be included. *'Trivial' in the sense of their presence in the landscape - length, flow etc but presumably not trivial when it comes for example to their potential for causing disruption through flooding. Thus the text which previously suggested the list aspired to inclusion of all of the 'main rivers' (as defined and mapped) seems misplaced, hence I have removed much of it and pointed out the mis-match between 'main rivers' and watercourses which might be deemed significant enough for inclusion on this list. I viewed the EA map via a link from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/main-river-map-for-england-proposed-changes-and-decisions and the NRW map at https://datamap.gov.wales/maps/new?layer=inspire-nrw:NRW_MAIN_RIVERS#/ thanks Geopersona (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main rivers