Talk:Chew Valley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Boundaries

A query on the geographical boundaries of this area - isn't a valley defined by its water catchment area? Any views? SP-KP 18:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A good question & I'd be interested in the thoughts of others. Probably to a geographer the water catchment area is the correct definition - but in everyday usage it could be the villages covered by the Chew Valley Explorer bus, the area included in the distribution of the Chew Valley Gazette (monthly free paper), the area covered by the valley community policeman etc. Is the correct term or the colloquial usage more important? Rod 10:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

One way around this could be to use a form of words such as "the Chew Valley is an area in Somerset bounded by the water catchment area of the River Chew; sometimes the term is used less precisely to include other areas nearby" SP-KP 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the change to the article lead, I'd like to suggest that the template is made more precise too. The "villages", "reservoirs" "rivers" and "SSSIs" section should, I think, only include areas within the Chew Valley proper, and other important locations should be listed in the "nearby places" section. SP-KP 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do this if I knew exactly what the boundaries of the valley "proper" are by this definition - can you provide this or tell me how to work it out? Rod 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. To work it out, you need to wander around all the areas which you think might be in the valley, spill a cup of water on the ground, and see if it flows into the Chew ... :-) Seriously, though, you can do this on any map with contours, alhough the "algorithm" (I think we can still use that term, even if it's a human brain doing the computation) is somewhat tricky to describe in words. Give me a few minutes, and I'll go and get a map out and see if I can tell you where the line runs. SP-KP 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think it goes something like this. I can't promise this is perfect - I'll check it again some time and let you know if I've spotted any errors!

• The Chew meets the Avon near the Lockkeeper pub at Keynsham, so start your line there; it then heads south, cutting through the eastern outskirts of Keynsham, sweeps to the east of Burnett, up to the top of Stantonbury Hill and thence to the top of Winsbury Hill.
• It then heads southwest through Marksbury, west across Marksbury Plain, keeping to the south of Hunstrete, Hunstrete Lake, Lords Wood, Pensford and Chelwood.
• Blackberry Hill and Red Hill are boundary points, and then from there you head southwest again between Folly Farm and Cholwell. Burledge Hill is also a boundary point, the line then runs south through the centre of Hinton Blewitt, and between Litton and Chewton Wood.
• It then sweeps in a big loop around the south side of Chewton Mendip, just including Emborough, I think, but not Emborough Pond (a.k.a. Lechmere Water, including Nedge Hill but not Green Ore. Eaker Hill Wood is in, as is the eastern side of Stock Hill.
• East Harptree Woods are in but Compton Martin is out. You then head north in a wiggly line roughly midway between the two lakes, and then northwest along the ridge north of Blagdon Lake, which is out. Breach Hill is in, but Nempnett Thrubwell, sadly, is out. You then head north so Butcombe is out.
• The boundary then head north across the Lulsgate Plateau - Bristol International Airport but Felton and Winford are in. Barrow Gurney Reservoirs are out. The boundary then runs eastwards along the top of Dundry Hill, south of Dundry.
• From Maes Knoll Fort you then run northeast then east (so Whitchurch and Queen Chalrton are out). Finally you head north, up through the western outskirts of Keynsham, back to where you started. SP-KP 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this - you are a better map reader than me & I'm sure you are technically right - have you taken all of the tributaries into account? (& the number of red inks gives me plenty of work to do), but I would suggest that a "generally accepted" definition would be different eg almost everyone I know thinks Blagdon lake is in the Chew Valley & this is suported by documents such as BANES - Area 2 - Chew Valley & BANES Area 3:Upper Chew and Yeo Valleys and the Chew Valley Web Site & Chew Valley Gazette about us page also the Mendip Hills AONB web site talks about the lakeS of the Chew Valley. Chew Valley Broadband suggests that the valley includes Compton Martin etc as does Avon & Somerset Constabulary, North Somerset Council seems to agree.

All of these would mean that Compton Martin, Blagdon & Nempnett Thrubwell would definitely be in. Would a solution be to re-title the page "Chew Valley; incorporating the Yeo Valley" or the "Chew & Yeo Valleys" although some redirection of searches would be needed as no one would ever search for this as a title. I'm still not convinced that the geographers definition is more important that the "common usage" term & I bet I could find a field in Nempnett Thrubwell where I could pour my water & find it ends up in Chew Valley lake.

Yep, all the tributaries are taken into account. The method I use to come up with one of these boundaries means that if you make an error and mistake a tributary for some other river, your line quickly ends up back at some midpoint on the Chew. If you finish where you started you know you've got it right (more or less).

From my experience elsewhere on Wikipedia, where you have multiple definitions, the only way to really resolve it is to include the necessary detail about the differing interpretations in the article. Vegetarian had a big edit war a while back, which only settled down when everyone agreed on that approach. The Chew Valley as a concept is distinct enough (regardless of which boundary you use) to have a Wikipedia article of its own; merging or partial merging the Yeo Valley article into this - which is what I think you are suggesting - to my mind creates more problems than it solves, given that the Yeo valley runs to Congresbury and beyond. I'd say we should stick with separate Chew Valley & Yeo Valley articles, have each of them centre primarily on the content of their own area, but talk about areas outside which are popularly believed to be inside, with notes to explain the situation if a strict geographer's definition is adopted. I'll see if I can come up with some more examples of articles which have had to deal with a similar dilemma, to give you some reference points.

P.S. Finding something interesting to say about all my redlinks above might be a challenge! Don't be afraid to unlink the more trivial ones rather than creating any forever-doomed-to-be-substubs.

SP-KP 22:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Europe, Manchester and Southern England will give you some ideas of how others have tackled similar issues. SP-KP 22:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Double-checking the details of my boundaries, Compton Martin isn't totally out - the eastern edge just scrapes in, and the bit of Nempnett Thrubwell that has the church in it is in, but the rest is out - I told you I couldn't guarantee perfection :-) SP-KP 22:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I've changed the lead paragraph to try to say that various definitions of area are used - feel free to improve it. Rod 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done a bit more work - see what you think. One thing that occurred to me which I didn't do is that we might want to reformat the places list in the same way as has been done for Bristol's suburbs list. Also, I've not touched the template yet - I wanted to hear your thoughts on that before wading in. SP-KP 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking good - I've just tweeked 1959 to 1050's as it opened in 1956! I will look at the list of places - feel free to do as you want with the template Rod 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs a map

I think this page needs a map to help the reader envisage the area & how it all fits together. Ideally it would show the towns & villages, rivers, lakes, major roads etc - but could also include some sort of shading which would illustrate the "true valley" with the catchment of the river, but also extend far enough to include Blagdon lake & the other areas which are generally considered to be part of the valley. I will put in a request to the map experts as I couldn't make this. Rod 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Map was kindly supplied by User:SFC9394 see Image:Chew Valley Map.png— Rod ^talk 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the location map showing somerset in Northern Ireland? --Notagoodname 11:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't until two edits ago. Reverted. --Mnemeson 11:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mixed capitals and mixed number

Currently, for example " wrens (Troglodytidae) to Mistle Thrush (Turdidae). " I'm not sure which is better:

• " Wren (Troglodytidae) to Mistle Thrush (Turdidae). " or
• " wrens (Troglodytidae) to mistle thrushes (Turdidae). "

Rich Farmbrough 14:25 23 August 2006 (GMT).

ISBN Problems

Since this is featured tomorrow I've removed the invalid ISBNs

• Janes, Rowland (ed) (1987). The Natural History of the Chew Valley.
• Chew Magna and the Chew Valley in old photographs | publisher = Redcliffe Press | id =ISBN 18729161X
• Before the Lake: Memories of the Chew Valley | publisher = The Harptree Historic Society | id =ISBN 094883209

Rich Farmbrough 13:03 30 August 2006 (GMT).

17-25

Couldn't inline notes 17-25 (that look ugly) easily have been reduced to one note? Eixo 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Couple of issues

I'm afraid I was away while this was going through PR and FAC. Couple of issues that concern me:

• The intro states that it's good arable and dairy land, but I couldn't see any elaboration, and more importantly references, later in the article. I don't doubt the dairy claim, but I don't recall it being especially big on arable, so some references for that would be good. Perhaps this could be elaborated on in the economy/industry paragraph of the demographics section.
• The choice of sectioning looks strange to me. I won't make a big fuss about it since it's clearly good enough to pass FAC. I would have thought it'd make more sense to group geology, ecology and climate together under "Geography" rather grouping two of them with "History".

Joe D (t) 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

I don't know if it's just something wrong with either my browser or me, but that map seems to show a dot in Northern Ireland, which isn't northern Somerset. Needs changing.

Changed. --Mnemeson 11:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's your browser. You may wish to report it here. Joe D (t) 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate

The climatological information in this article seems mostly be generic either to the British Isles or at least to a broader region than this one valley. It seems questionable to me whether such detail is necessary or desirable in such a specific article. mgekelly 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some changes that copuld be reviewed

1. Anglos-Saxon cēo has been replaced with ceo.
2. Gov and Politics section was removed by an anon - I have restored.
3. Compton Martin has been replaced by Compton Dando
4. Compton Martin Ochre Mine by Winford Ochre Mine

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 15:28 31 August 2006 (GMT).

4. Reverted. Rich Farmbrough 15:35 31 August 2006 (GMT).

3. Looks correct. Rich Farmbrough 15:38 31 August 2006 (GMT).

1. Arky has been asked about this. Rich Farmbrough 15:48 31 August 2006 (GMT).

Main page

As a fellow South-west Brit, I am glad that the Chew Valley was on the Main page today. EDIT: --Thelb⁴ 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

FA tune-up

As promised, Rodw, a few things I noticed that could use attention:

• The last sentence of the lead (“The main village is Chew Magna but the largest are Pensford, Clutton, Bishop Sutton, High Littleton and Temple Cloud.”) is confusing as the ‘largest are’ list includes several that are arguably smaller than Chew Magna. The sentence, however it is rewritten, should also be incorporated into the preceding paragraphs rather than comprising one on its own.

• I've changed this to say "The main commercial centre is Chew Magna." as largest could be by area, population etc.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• In Etymology: The last sentence of the section is convoluted and would be more easily understood if split into two. It also needs sourcing.

• Revised (and removed one claim I couldn't find a reliable source for).— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• In Geology: The last sentence of the first paragraph (“The unusual geological features have been recognised with sites including; Barns Batch Spinney, Hartcliff Rocks Quarry and Dundry Main Road South Quarry being recognised as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for their geological interest.”) is somewhat redundant, and misuses a semicolon.

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• In Human habitation: ”The area around Pensford was an important coal mining area…” could use rewording.

• Revised.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• In Population and demographics: William Rees-Mogg who “no longer lives in the village” seems to have in fact died in 2012. Likewise, Acker Bilk died this year. Can you check that the other notable folks listed as living in the valley are both, update verb tense where appropriate, and cite sources?

• Removed a couple and updated others.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Again in Population: Can you update the last paragraph to reflect the most current census and ID data?

• Changed to 2011 census & 2010 ID (latest available reliable stats).— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the provenance of File:Herriotts06-04.jpg, and by relation File:Pic cvl from burledge.jpg from the Lake article. They were uploaded to Commons by the same user, who indicated that permission had been granted by the authors (cvlbirding.co.uk and riverchew.co.uk respectively). They were uploaded as CC-BY-2.5, but we were all quite naive about licensing back in 2006 and I don't see that any release was provided by the authors. Do you have any background on this?

• No info so I have removed them - may add some other pics later.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to check for uncited statements throughout, as it seems this article has seen a fair amount of action since 2006.

• I've done a few of these but if you spot others which still need references please let me know.— Rod ^talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The external links look great—thanks for reworking those. Looking forward to crossing this one off the list! Maralia (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a little more copyediting, reduced overlinking, and tidied up the formatting of some references. I am satisfied, and will make a note that the article has been overhauled and updated. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)