Talk:River Stour, Kent

Why not...

... one comprehensive article about the various parts of this river? The fact that there is a box listing all its components, with a separate article for each, makes for very complicated reading - and the whole thing is less than 100 miles* from start to finish at its longest. The River Medway article does that - why not these? Peter Shearan (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite and copy violation

I have now rewritten the entire article, so that we now have an overview of the whole river system. IMO the existing idea that for every tributary (well not every - there are some missing, such as the Sarre which is the third longest!) there is a need for a separate article is somewhat puzzling - especially since this is no proper summary for them all. The Environment Agency (EA) is quoted again and again, yet it carried out a Study Plan for the River Stour (using that title for the entire river) on this area (September 2006) Catchment Flood Management Plan, which gave quantities of information and showed the river as a whole and not made up of individual parts - it also listed every tributary and gave its exact lengths and gave the size of the catchment area - taking the River Stour as an organic whole.

It is important, too, that a proper map of the river is part of the article. The map shown is not at all accurate - and shows few names. It is the only way that a reader can see what the picture of the river system looks like.

In addition the table and its preceding paragraph is lifted whole from the Grove Ferry club - a copyvio. I have removed it.

• it is 73.7 (117.9km) including every tributary!

Peter Shearan (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts

I am copying the following taken from that that I posted on the River Great Stour article.

I really cannot see why we have to keep perpetuating the idea that in some way this river is three separate ones! I realise that there is some disparity with what the Environment Agency says in different references: this one, for example, certainly shows the Great Stour as one of those listed; however the Internal Drainage Board specifically local, says that it is responsible for the River Stour, and both have a map which shows the entire length of the river. IMO the fact that different names are given to parts of the river - the Upper Great Stour; the Great Stour itself; and then the River Stour cannot hide the fact that the same water is flowing through all of them. So this one cannot be a source of the Stour - it is surely just part of the river with a different name? Nor can this have an estuary like it says - it isn't the end of the river by any means. Finally the University of Liverpool study, with its map so much better than ours, says exactly what I am saying.

It seems to me that we need one article (River Stour, Kent) which includes the whole river from Lenham to the sea. In it we use the recommended layout in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Article Structure for that task. This includes the suggestion that a list of all tributaries is included:

• that should include at least three before Ashford (names?) coming off the Greensand Ridge , which is where the river starts
• the four tributaries S of Ashford, including the first major one, the East Stour. They should be in some sort of order (clockwise?)
• the four tributaries N of Ashford (Brook Stream etc)
• Sarre Penn & Wantsum
• Little Stour
  • all tributaries of those directly entering the S main river must be included

Once we have done that article (and I have begun work on it) then all the others should follow - if it is considered to be necessary. The Kennington Stream is only 1.1 miles in length...

Peter Shearan (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the Stour rises at Lenham (furthest from mouth). The tributaries are easy to deal with, just list them in the order they feed in from source to mouth, with left and right bank as though one is facing downstream, as per the article on the River Medway. As to whether each tributary needs its own article, I'd say yes, it allows them to be covered in greater detail without dominating the article on the main river. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

According to this article, the pronunciation for the name of this river Stour (in Kent) is [ˈstaʊə] (rhyming with flower [ˈflaʊə]).

But, according to the authoritative LPD (Longman pronunciation dictionary, by professor John C. Wells), this Stour is "usually" (= ?) [stʊə] (rhyming with one pronunciation of sure, i.e. [ʃʊə]).

What is the true local pronunciation? Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.4.213 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Kent native, I can say that it rhymes with flower and not door. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Oppose In January 2008 an proposal was made to merge one of the tributaries. The template was incorrect and no discussion happened. No one fixed the template.

• All the tributaries have stub articles- merging one would be inconsistent.
• Twenty three months later- I am the first one to care enough to fix it- there is no support from any active editor for this suggestion
• No one has enough interest to work the dozen or so affected rivers and streams

This template should be deleted. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge in River Great Stour and River Upper Great Stour

It is clear that these three article (River Stour, Kent, River Great Stour and River Upper Great Stour) overlap significantly and all seem to be talking about what are essentially different names for different stretches of the same river.

Given the level of overlap, it seems sensible to merge the three article into one. The previous attempt to obtain a consensus on this clearly just ran into apathy, so I think the best thing to do is to plough ahead and do it. At least if there is a consensus against meger, this will flush it out.

By the way, I'm editing from a web cafe that doesnt seem to support login (I guess it has cookies forced off). I normally edit as User:chris_j_wood. -- 89.234.0.209 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stonar Cut

The article says:

The Stonar Cut obviates the need for seagoing craft to take the longer route around the loop at Sandwich.

But the only cite we have for the Stonar Cut (the one from the Thanet Centre for Archeology) has both text and maps that suggest that cut is and was purely a hydraulic feature, with sluices that would preclude navigation. So if it is indeed navigable, we need a different source. If not, we need to change the text. I've added a cite needed template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on River Stour, Kent. 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/20101126112437/http://kent.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/countryside_and_coast/walking/stour_valley_walk.aspx to http://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/countryside_and_coast/walking/stour_valley_walk.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127024516/http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/gt%20stour%20case%20study-pages/fld-rvr.html to http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/gt%20stour%20case%20study-pages/fld-rvr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717122241/http://www.southernwater.co.uk/News/latestNews/default.asp?aID=66460936&year=2009&month=02 to http://www.southernwater.co.uk/News/latestNews/default.asp?aID=66460936&year=2009&month=02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717122403/http://www.southernwater.co.uk/News/latestNews/default.asp?aID=76462693&year=2009&month=05 to http://www.southernwater.co.uk/News/latestNews/default.asp?aID=76462693&year=2009&month=05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)