Talk:River Thames/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early text

"The Thames is a short river"? In comparison to longer rivers, I suppose! -- Robert Brook

Isn't this river better known as the "river Thames"? Although wikipedia convention would have it called "Thames river" maveric149, Sunday, April 14, 2002

Thames forts

Yup, I'm (slowly) getting together stuff on the Chatham Defences, which include many of the Thames forts. Will try to do a bit on the remainder, if I ever finish... :-) JackyR 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

what ever!
yyyyyy

River Xxx vs Xxx River

This was in the sydney morning herald, and just wondering if any experts can explain it:

all (or most) rivers in England are called the River Xxx: River Thames, River Avon, etc.

Australia was (mainly) settled by the British, yet its rivers are all Xxx River: e.g. Parramatta River in Sydney, Yarra River in Melbourne, etc.

My theory is that River Xxx indicates that Xxx is the name of the river itself. (e.g. Thames is not also the name of some city or area). By contrast, Xxx River indicates "a river associated with Xxx". But I'm not sure if that works. --Sumple 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be something in your theory. I have seen the term 'London River' used to describe the River Thames, but only in older documents. Perhaps that sort of usage was fashionable in the 18th/19th centuries (when presumably most Australian rivers got their names), but has now fallen out of favour again in the UK. I have a feeling Dickens uses the 'London River' term, which fits the chronology, but don't have the books to hand here. -- Chris j wood 11:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the banks

Does anyone have any material on the changes of position of the banks of the river thru London? The building of the Victoria Embankment (bit by Embankment tube) meant that all the posh houses along the Strand (and how about that name!) no longer had direct water access at the rear. Not sure whether there was a change at the Tower of London - is the outer watergate original or a tunnel through the new embankment? Also, old pics of from the river where the R. Fleet ran out show a confusion of (I think) islands: nothing like the smooth, single edge we see today. But this is all from memory - sources, people, sources! JackyR 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pleistocene Thames as tributary of Rhine

"the early River Thames ... crossed what is now the North Sea to become a tributary of the Rhine." I'm finding this confusing. Wouldn't the Thames have flowed downhill along the valley which later became the English Channel, rather than crossing to what is now continental Europe? The confluence of the Thames and Rhine would have been in what is now the Channel or the North Sea, right? -- 201.51.166.124 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Thames turned northwards following what is now the Essex and Suffolk coasts and joined the Rhine roughly in the middle of what is now the North Sea; the Rhine continued to northwards to an estuary about the same latitude as Edinburgh.

Linkspam

Some IP has been desperately adding links to his site about Hampton Wick and related matters. Actually his site isn't commercial and it isn't bad, which is why Hampton Wick should have and does have a link to it. There's no reason why this article should have a link to his page on Hampton Wick or his page on the Thames Path, as the Thames Path has its own article. Coming to this article to zap both links, I noticed two commercial-sounding links in bold (always a danger sign), looked at both, and zapped one for excessive commercialism and the other for irrelevance (it's primarily about the path, not the river). A number of the other links here smell spammy, irrelevant, or both, but I lack the stamina to look into them all right now. Please keep an eye on the links here; it does seem that a number of people are particularly keen to use WP for their own purposes. -- Hoary 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice

There's some nice pics in this article. BalfourCentre 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning repetitive vandals

I've just had one vandal banned, their history goes back to before October and seems to be school children. The IP block should restrain them (albeit temporarily) for the time being. Please report any commonly recurring vandals here. Thanks, Jamsta 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti on this page...

Paragraph two starts:

"Future aliens dat suck balls At the height of the last ice age around 6000 years ago..."

Sorry, I'm a complete newbie and don't know how to correct that -- curiously, it doesn't show up on the "edit this page" version of paragrpah two.

Just thought somebody should know, and do what I cannot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.60.2.178 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Rowing

I think the list of all notable rowing clubs is overdoing it - it unbalances the article. Also - how are we defining notable - notable according to whom? Secretlondon 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's also a lot of kayak/canoe clubs on the Thames which I wouldn't add to the main article. I suggest list the top 3 if they are ranked - or none if they aren't ranked, and create a new article called 'Watersports clubs on the River Thames', add rowing, sailing, canoe, windsurf, etc. Jamsta 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was originally my addition when I beefed up the section on rowing (which was previously rather lacklustre). I'm not going to make a great impassioned defence of it. In terms of how notable is defined, you'll see that I did specify size, history or success - but I concede that this is still potentially rather subjective. It is tricky - to answer Jamsta, no there aren't any rankings (the sport doesn't really work like that) but some clubs are definitely more equal than others. I would also contend that rowing is by some measure the biggest sport on the Thames (somewhere in the order of 21,000 ARA members in the Thames region I think) and does therefore deserve detailed treatment in this article. Perhaps if I get a moment, I will delete the list myself and try to replace it with something better. James of Putney 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work James, IMO more information is better on Wikipedia. I think making a sub-article is the best idea, with a paragraph description on the main page + link. This way you can expand the information even further if there is more too add. If rowing is the most popular watersport on the Thames, can you provide a link to a reference please, otherwise we'll use a phrase like "Rowing is one of the most popular watersports" rather than "is the most popular". I'm going to do this in my sandbox (click here: [1]) before modifying the main article. Please let me know your comments. Thanks Jamsta 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the main article - someone has already taken it into their own hands, but in a different way. I still think a sub-article is good. Anyone agree? Jamsta 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but see my suggestion below.--A bit iffy 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New section on industry or commerce or tourism or something? Plus a sub-article?

I'm surprised there's no section about the use to which the river is put. There is this section on sport, but that's just a small aspect of the Thames. One major use is obviously tourism, with the many sightseeing boats. Also, there's a lot of other river traffic, though I'm not sure what all the other vessels I see are for. Anyone know? In any case, I'm thinking that some sort of section on the use of the river (with a subsection on sport) would be justified, along with a separate sub-article as Jamsta's suggested, but to include other aspects of its use. Can anyone suggest a good name for such an article? Use of the River Thames maybe? Exploitation of the River Thames?--A bit iffy 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the Thames was FULL of boats,particularly traders from the Caribbean and Far East (17th-19th century?). More on the docks and trading companies? Paulbrock 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is or should be covered by the Port of London article, though this concentrates on the river between London and the sea. Pterre (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

River Thames and "The Amulet of Samarkand"

I rephrased the note on The Amulet of Samarkand added to the Culture section by 69.235.164.190. However I don't understand the beginning to the sentence that reads, "Another is featured ...". Another what? As it reads it could mean another journey but I don't know The Amulet of Samarkand. Is anyone able to clarify the sentence? Brother Francis 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Century

"By the 18th century, the Thames was one of the world's busiest waterways, as London became the centre of the vast, mercantile British Empire. During this time, one of the worst river disasters in England took place on September 3, 1878..." But 1878 was in the 19th century, not the 18th century. This should either be changed to "By the 19th century...", or else the words "During this time" should be removed. Art LaPella 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sailing

I think that the section on sailing is now suffering from the problem previously identified and corrected in the section on rowing (see above) - the list of clubs unbalances the article. The list could surely be dealt with as a wikipedia category 'Sailing clubs on the river Thames' (or two categories, one for the tidal reaches and one for the rest of the river) and with a sub-article if necessary.

James of Putney 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that James. Incidentally there is nothing on wild-life on the Thames, but fish and birds are quite important (there is a bit on Trowlock Island). I am not an expert but perhaps someone could put together some sub-articles on that too. Motmit 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

This section at the end Catholics are bizarre I have never heard such an expression before. Citation required or it should be removed, and in any case it would belong under the trivia section rather than its own heading. Unusual Cheese 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Points

Would it be possible to include the temperature of the Thames? As complex as this may be for locations, times and tides it would be nice to know. As far as a river goes the fact that people can get ill from the disease washed in from vermin and its too cold to swim in are pretty good points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.91.165 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The main picture of the Thames looks very dull, surely another can be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.34.226 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it possible to add a bit on the Thames Estuary forts and possibly a link to Sealand? Orville Eastland

Just what the hell is "pre-celtic Old European" supposed to mean? For goodness' sake the celts are the aboriginal peoples of all western europe with the small postulated exception of Eire-Iberian Atlantic cultures. The idea of a "celtic invasion" of britain has long ago been disgarded by historical and anthropological circles. 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)~G.Hargreaves

Actually, British Celts are only genetically Old-European (i.e., their genetic features - Y-DNA, for example, is very similar to that of Basques and other isolated groups). However, distinctly Celtic languages are relatively latecomers to Western Europe, having arrived about 3.000 YBP, together with the introduction of iron into the region. Before that, these tribes probably spoke languages that might be related to Basque, considering that genetically the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from Basques. I agree that the text in the etymology section is confusing, though. 201.37.64.107 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the cleanest river in the world which flows through a city.

I think that this should read It is the cleanest tidal river in the world which flows through a major city, because off the top of my head (and I am no expert) what about the Limmat which rises at Lake Zurich in the city of Zurich? Or as a tidal river in a city what about the Shannon as it flows throught the city of Limerick? Perhapse some one who specalises in this area could fix the sentence or comment on what I have writen here.Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it until its meaning is clarified. - SimonP 18:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford bit isn't quite right. The Latin name Tamesis (from which derives the English "Thames") applies only to the section below Dorchester. The name is a pure portmanteau of the Latin names of the Thame (the Aylesbury river) and the Isis (which Oxonians hold to refer to the entire section from the source in Gloucs to Dorchester), rather than Isis being an abbreviation. Now to work that in without totally wrecking the sense... Phlogistomania 00:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The British punk group Sex Pistols played a concert on a riverboat on the River Thames on June 7, 1977. They said they were "serenading" the Queen. They later got arrested when they docked. I thought this would be nice addition to history. User: Anonymous 21:44, Feb 26, 2005

Didn't they dump a couple hundred gallons of gasoline into the Thames for New Year's 2000? Micahbrwn 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Only if it was a very long way from the barges of fireworks for the "River of Fire" (2.5 tons of explosive per barge...Ouch!) JackyR 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing after the anti-climax that was the "river of fire" that the plan was supposed to be to pour some kind of flamable liquid (Perhaps meths rather than gasoline, or something more eco 'friendly'?) onto the Thames and set light to it, creating a real river of fire. The adverts for it, voiced by Ian McShane, along with the hype various officials were spouting in the months leading up to it certainly implied it would be much more than a firework show, and what we got in the end certainly looked like the desert without the main course! I can't believe anyone put that together as a stand-alone firework display. Now new years eve 2005 was a real firework display! I saw it on a TV and at the very end panicked for a second because I thought something had gone off, it was so intense!

Slight reshuffle

I find the present structure of the article a little bit unsatisfactory. It starts 58 million years ago and then hops between human and physical aspects in a very ragged way. However before changing it I am giving a heads up in case someone is attached to the current structure for some reason. I have already encapsulated the suggested revised structure in the summary which I added before Christmas and that seems to have been accepted. Then perhaps we can move forward and improve the content. QTCV.

As in real life, the River Thames attracts a awful lot of rubbish, so well done to Colinfine for getting rid of a load of flotsom. Motmit (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another heads-up. The last set of changes seem to have gone down OK so thanks for tacit support as well as some appreciation. The final section on my hit-list is the Culture/literature section which seems to have picked up a lot of flotsom - but changing it might be seen as a matter of taste rather than fact. Books named after books about the river and books only mentioning the word Thames once don't seem worthy of inclusion whereas others could be made more of - anyway I'll give it a go in a day or so and hope it's OK - Regards Motmit (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement lead image

As discussed in the edit summaries, there's been a back-and-forth between myself and Motmit regarding the lead image. The old image is as follows:

My suggestion for the replacement of the lead image is as below:

The fact that it is at sunset doesn't distract since there is really nothing you can 'see' of the river Thames itself in either of the images - what is of interest is what surrounds the river, and I'd argue that there is more to see in the replacement candidate. In terms of composition and quality, I'd argue that the second image has better detail (the original is extremely poor quality when viewed 100%) and is more attractive.

I can't really see anything objective that would favour the original over the replacement. I'm evidently not going to pursuade Motmit to accept the new image, but the only argument he has put forward to keeping the old one is that he doesn't want another 'bloody sunset'. I could equally argue that I don't particularly want to see another bloody overexposed, poor quality overcast skied photo too, as tends to be par for the course in London-based articles. :-)

I'm not against the cohabitation of both images in the article somewhere, since they both clearly illustrate different parts of the Thames in London, but I do still feel that the replacement is a stronger candidate for the lead image.

Anyway, he's reverted the image twice now and we're heading for a third revert so I wanted to see what others think about these images. Your opinions welcome. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish this had been put up for discussion in the first place out of respect for those who have been looking after this article for many months now and have been happy with the lead existing picture, and for the original photographer, whoeverer he was. The Thames, as we know, is 215 miles long and not just the 2 miles through the tourist zone so the balance of the article has to reflect this. When I restructured and brought in extra pictures, I felt it thoroughly appropriate to leave the lead picture, even though it was central London, as it shows the House of Commons, the London Eye and the Hungerford bridges - all key elements not illustrated elsewhere in the article. It shows the river in daylight and if the sky is overcast that is also showing reality. It is also a soothing introduction to an article about what is to those of us who know it a delightfully soothing river. The proposed alternative is frankly rather garish and illustrates a bridge that is already in the article twice. IMHO pictures of sunsets illustrate nothing but sunsets. We do finish the article with a night glamour shot (so I do not think we need another), and I left the existing sunset shots (both pretty awful, but realistic sunsets rather than touched up) as they seemed to lead into it quite effectively.

There are literally millions of articles that do not have pictures at all so it would be good if photographers could concentrate on illustrating those. The 'Tideway' article describes the tourist zone of the river through London in London which makes it a good place for tourist shots. Using a bit of imagination might come up with ideas like illustrating the song 'Waterloo Sunset'. Diliff appears to have been replacing existing clear natural daylight pictures with dusk and night shots. I don't give a stuff about Glasgow University. but I do love the Thames. Motmit (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Please do not make gender assumptions)

• I accept your points, but I don't think any of them are particularly strong. Yes, you have no doubt been a care taker of this article for some time now, but just because people were happy with the existing photo, that doesn't mean that a better can't come along and replace it. Wikipedia by its very nature is not static, and the project guidelines encourages all to 'be bold'. I know that doesn't imply you should be single-minded about it and I don't think I was. I brought it to the talk page when it was appropriate to. But to bring every single potential change to a talk page before acting is extremely counter productive. I've been a pretty long term photographic contributor to Wikipedia and the vast majority of changes to images in articles have not met controversy, so I've used my judgement about where and when a talk page should be used (ie I did bring it to the London talk page, as I wasn't sure where it would be best served, if anywhere).

• Your point that an image that taken an overcast day is merely illustrating reality is exactly the same point I was making. The only difference is that aesthetically, a photo taken near or at sunset is generally more pleasing to the eye. To say that it illustrates nothing but a sunset is ridiculous. The same buildings and landmarks are clearly visible in this photo, whether it was taken at sunset or the middle of the day. And I could argue that when viewing both images at full size, far MORE detail is visible in the sunset photo.

• I haven't been systematically been replacing daytime shots with night time shots, but both are equally valid as long as they illustrate the subject. Aesthetics are merely a bonus. If you look at my featured pictures on my user page, you'd see that there are as many, if not more daytime photos there. You would also find that I do illustrate a lot of mundane, ordinary articles with my images when I can. Its just that I tend to put a bit more effort into providing a high profile article with an quality image. I'd certainly be interested in providing an equivalent but technically and aesthetically better photo of the Thames towards the Houses of Parliament and London Eye too, but I do see the benefit of the sunset photo in the article, regardless. Are you really that convinced that the image has no place in the article, even though you admit that it has two pretty awful sunset pictures currently? Surely at the least, those images should be removed first and foremost.

• And I do take issue with your assertion that the image in question has been 'touched up'. I have adjusted it subtly for exposure, but I certainly have not 'created' a scene that did not exist. Any and every' photographer, whether they mean to or not, will have some impact on the capture of a scene. Whether it has been adjusted in photoshop or through the settings on the camera, there will always be a discrepancy of some sort between reality and what is captured, and in turn, outputted on your computer monitor. That said, I've always striven to keep my photography as realistic as possible.

• Anyway, I think enough has been said between the two of us. I'd prefer a third party's input here since we're clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Third opinion? I'm afraid I'd have to side with User:Diliff here. To me the proposed image is of a more fitting quality than the existing version. Of course preferences in images are subjective, but I have a BA in Art & Design for what it's worth (not much I know!).... :-) -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it's not the image that is at issue - it is the totality of the article. We could have a beauty contest between thousands of pictures. The point is that pictures need to inform and support the article. The River Thames is a huge subject and the challenge is to encapsulate it efficiently especially for the benefit of those who only know it as a 2 mile tourist zone. So it comes down to some fundamental questions.

1 What should be the subject matter of the lead image? If you think about it, it has to be the River Thames at Westminster flowing past the seat of the United Kingdom Government - throw in an icon of 21st century London as well for good measure.

2 Do we need three pictures of Tower Bridge in an article about the whole river? I think not

3 Should this picture replace the existing Night panorama which has the bridge in? Over to you

4 Will we miss out if this picture is not included? No - it is already on the article for Tower Bridge in large format. That article is directly linked from the River Thames page - I know cos I put the link in

I am fully with you in wanting to see better pictures - the subject deserves them. We could certainly have a higher definition version of the existing one if it showed the HP, the Eye, a bridge, a riverboat in service and any other features that link into the article. Some of pics were already there and I didn't have the heart to replace them, although I shuffled them and moved the sunsets to the Tideway as a first step. Others were the best I could find to illustrate a point (and that seems to have cut down some of the rubbish we were getting). The maps are lousy too. I am not a creature of the night so we may not see eye to eye on some aesthetics. But please have a good read through the article and then treat yourself to a trip up river following the crossings or islands or locks, stop off at the towns and explore a few tributaries. Then come back and discuss - I should be interested in your views - all the best Motmit (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

I was supporting the image as a replacement for the lead photograph. I think issues of the over representation of the City of London in the article is an important, but slightly different issue. I think it's fair to expect to depict the iconic part of the River rather than a banal section in the lead, but I'm with you that this shouldn't be the only part with images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also completely agree that there shouldn't be an overload of London-based images in the article, but as Jza84 mentioned, that is a separate issue. It seems as though you have been single-minded in stopping the inclusion of the image in the article, despite admitting that there are similar, but inferior photos already there. I still maintain that my image is the better one to lead the article, but as I said I'm not against the old image remaining in the article elsewhere until a superior one is available (it is something I'll consider photographing when time and weather permits - as I said, I think aesthetics is important and while true to the weather of London, an overcast day is not usually conducive to good photography). That said, and based on the discussion here, I'll be bold and look at both re-arranging some of the images and removing the less useful ones. You're welcome to have some input too, but I hope you'll compromise and not simply revert me again. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very condescending of you to allow me some input!!!! If there is any single-mindedness, it is on the part of a page-trampling photographer with no previous interest in this article. Not sorry to see the back of those other out of hours shots, but I reserve the right to be bold and replace your image at any time with a picture of my own that I consider superior. Motmit (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Steady on.

The night-time one has its merits but is in a lurid red that reminds me of tourist postcards. Meanwhile, in the daytime one the Hungerford bridge is in unfortunate superimposition with other stuff that the viewer might find more interesting.

I'm half a planet away from the Thames, but I'm sure many people reading this are not. So please, somebody, get a third and better photo of the Thames to use here. (It's not elusive or hard to get into focus, and it doesn't require a model release. Should be pretty easy. It's probably in its regular position and inviting photographers as I write. But there's no rush.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake Motmit, you have a real attitude problem here... I didn't say I'd allow your input, I welcomed it. Big difference. You're very selective in what you choose to see of my words and actions. Of course you reserve the right to be bold and replace my image, but if I disagreed we may end up back in an 'edit war.' This is why I brought it to the talk page in the first place, so that we could try to find consensus with other contributors, and discuss it like civilised human beings, but as Hoary says: steady on.

Hoary, I'm not sure what you mean by needing a third photo or how the daytime photo is in 'unfortunate superimposition'. As for my image, I know what you mean by it looking like a tourist postcard, but I don't think this should prohibit it being in the article. The colours are realistic for a sunset/dusk photo, regardless of whether it is to your personal preference. Really, when it comes down to it, the issue should be whether the photo is of high quality and has encyclopaedic value. If it can satisfy these criteria, it shouldn't matter whether it was taken at night, day or in between. That said, I think there is room for a variety. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One problem here is the nature of "reality" in the coloring of dusk or night-time photographs. As is well known, the response of our eyes to color is dulled when it's dark. This doesn't happen with photography. (Of course there are anomalies there too, such as reciprocity failure, but they seem minor compared with this one big difference between eye and camera.) So colors recorded at night can look impossibly lurid even without filters, photoshoplifting, or other jiggery-pokery. Rightly or wrongly, I judge the colors in the night-time photo here against what I've seen with my eyes, and not against what I think I'd get from Ektachrome or a CCD. And perhaps unfairly, I do tend to think of night-time shots on postcards. As for "unfortunate superimposition", this was my awkward way of saying that the composition is such that the bridge in the middle ground spoils the view of what's in the background. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the well considered explanation.. but I will say that significant dulling of our eye's response to colour happens at a much lower luminance level than in this sunset (eg moonlight), so I'm not sure thats what is happening.. Of course, the human mind is very complicated, particularly the process of sensation and perception.. Long ago I wrote a big essay on the subject in fact. :-) But the question then remains, should we be capturing a scene as accurately as possible or should we be modifying it to appear as our eyes would see it? An ethical dilemma with no single answer. You're right, though, that there are aspects of the scene obscured by the bridge, but then, I can't think of a photo that does illustrate this many things without some obscuration. London is not an easy city to photograph. There are only so many suitable viewpoints. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary - another frequent vandal reverter on this article - for echoing my points precisely. The bridge in the day time one does obscure parliament and a better pic would be of the Houses of Parliament from upstream (Anyone got access to Millbank Tower?). Regards Motmit (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

quality of the water

What about the quality of the water? is it drinkable? since when? is it truth that the river was already considered dead? how and when was the process of revitalizing done? is it over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.19.217 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thames River

The Thames River is the longest river entirely in england,rising officaly at thames head in Glocesstershire,and flowing into the north sea at the thames estuary.It has a special significance in flowing through london,the capital of the united kingdom,although london only touches a short part of its course.The river is tidal in london with a rise and fall of 7 meters (23ft.) and becomes non-tidal at teddigton lock.the catchment area covers a large part of south eastern and western england and the river is fed by over 20 tributaries.The river contains over 80 islands,and having both seawater and freshwater streaches support a variety of wildlife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.209.10 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Flooding images

I added a couple of photos of parts of the Thames which flood at regular intervals, but they seem to have been taken off the article without being replaced. Anyone know why? This sort of stuff is of note as parts of the river such as that near Chiswick Roundabout flood nearby roads very frequently. --Veratien (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They are specific to central London and were moved to the Tideway article where that part of the river is covered in more detail. Motmit (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Current lead image

Proposed lead image replacement

Alternative lead image replacement - similar view but taken in the early morning

Does anyone have any issue with rearranging the pictures so that the Westminster picture added today (17 May) becomes the lead picture in line with discussions of some time ago?. Motmit (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• As the other 'involved party' in the previous discussion, I still think the current lead image is more 'striking', but now that I've finally got around to replacing the other candidate that we discussed with a better image, I'm not too concerned which of them is the lead image. If you or others feel strongly about it, I'll support that decision. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the existing one, as the landmarks present in it are much larger, while still not taking away from the river. Not a bad alternative, still a very nice photo. Jamsta (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

not as washed out (sun was behind which helped the lighting), but both have their merits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for coming back on on this. Comparing the latest additions I can volunteer some thoughts. The May pic has more activity on the river which is an advantage. As a work, it has an effective dynamic between wheel and RH boat which gives a strong perspective. Although the light is sharper in June, the vapour trails rather cut across the perspective. Regards Motmit (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Image

I don't know if someone wants to add it to the page or not, but I have a panorama image of the River Thames, taken from the walkway on Tower Bridge, facing East. The image is located at Image:TowerBridgeEastPanorama.jpg

River Thames panorama.

Thanks! Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the river is 215 miles long with hundreds of splendid views that are not included, while the number of Tideway pictures is probably disproportionate already. Regards Motmit (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that last bit - distinctly lacking in images of shipping etc on the lower river. Alas I don't have any recent pics and can't readily get there at present.Pterre (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - was referring to Tideway within London - yes we could do with some better lower esturial images with activity Motmit (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What sort of photos are you looking for? I live near Dartford on the river, pretty close to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and see quite a bit of shipping passing by. Not the prettiest part of the river but the article could probably do with a photo from there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Watershed map

Please could we get a map of the Thames and all its tributaries? 82.16.1.141 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My request is the same. Also may I ask: Has this basin area ever contained the same population as the rest of the British Isles? If not, is it projected to match out the rest of the British Isles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On the page about Ashton Keynes, there is a statement that the River Thames runs through the followin counties: Gloucestershire · Wiltshire · Oxfordshire · Berkshire · Buckinghamshire · Greater London · Surrey · Kent · Essex. Ofcourse, here is a copy and paste routine. Can it be confirmed, that the cathment area does not go outside these counties?--85.164.221.253 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No. The catchment area certainly goes outside those counties. As a starting point you could look at the major tributaries. The Wey for example, includes Sussex and Hampshire, and the Lee includes Befordshire & Hertfordshire. David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tidal Reaches

Please could the article include something about the tidal reaches of the Thames. How are they defined and what are the names (eg. Blackwall Reach, Erith Reach ...)? --Robkam (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 Robkam (UTC)

That is the sort of specific detail that should go on the Tideway article. Motmit (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

When I was growing up in Abingdon a lot of the boys used to call it the "The Fagging Knob" and another popular one was "Skew-whiff bitch". Should I put them up?

Not unless you can produce reliable sources that indicate these names are of significance.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Are Oppenheimer's theories relevant to the Thames?

I find, relating to the Saxon origins of names: "Recent research suggests that these peoples preceded the Romans rather than replaced them.[11]". I don't think that minority ethnolinguistic theories belong in this article, nor indeed are majority ones particularly worth much space here, but User:Motmit disagrees and reinstated the text I removed. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I append comments on my talk page. Motmit (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppenheimer has an interesting although minority view on Germanic invasions, and his ideas are somewhat topical. But I really don't think them relevant to the Thames article, which doesn't (and I suggest shouldn't - it's about a river) have a lot else to say about ethnolinguistic history. Would you reconsider your view? If so perhaps the talk page would be a good place for the arguments for inclusion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This begs a lot of questions - whose "minority" view for a start. And the earth going round the sun was once a minority view. Everything going back into pre-history is pretty widely debated, and on Wikipedia we don't suppress views just because we don't like them. It is disconcerting that there does seem to be a widespread campaign to eliminate anything that challenges the traditional proto-celtic paradigm - ie that boat loads of Anglo Saxons arrived after the Romans and drove the poor old British into Wales. Perhaps they did - perhaps they did not. There is no certainty about the proto-celtic paradigm any more than about any other, so the proper approach is to present different opinions, backed up with valid citations. The Oppenheimer (and many others) view is introduced as no more than a "suggestion". It is presented in the context of Anglo-Saxon settlement names on the river which is a perfectly valid context in which to raise the point. There is in fact quite extensive (but probably still unsatisfactory) discussion within the article on the origin of the name of the Thames. There is reference to the distinctive culture on what is the longest river in England - be it in the design of boats or settlement lifestyle. So ethnolinguistic history is pretty relevant. The article needs more positive contributions by people with a knowledge and an interest that can enhance it in these areas rather than someone hitting on it to take out what has been generally accepted for some time because " "I" really don't think relevant" or " "I" suggest shouldn't" be in it. Thanks Motmit (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to include this, provided the reference is to a reliable academic source: since no full reference is given, this is not obvious. More than one sentence would not be appropriate. However, I think it needs some re-writing, as at present it disturbs the flow of the paragraph.

This is a little analogous to the matter that was recently added to "Origin of the Name": it's a minority theory that I don't find convincing, but that's no reason to exclude it. I did however edit the contribution to replace "There is in fact a simpler theory" to "A new theory was published". --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppenheimer isn't an academic linguist, he's a medic who writes popular books propounding alternative paradigms, and his views leave him in a very small minority, but I wouldn't exclude him on those grounds. His ideas are notable and interesting, and maybe he's onto something. But, to repeat, I really don't think an article on the Thames is a good place to mention a deeply-disputed detail of exactly when the Germanic place names on the river might have originated. If the issue were considered to be relevant enough I'd have thought that the majority academic view should get corresponding space. I'd simply get rid of this detail. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Source of the Thames

At the moment the Source of the Thames is not documented. Is this a reliable document to link the article to? [2] I couldn't find an author or publisher. Michael Glass (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that better can be found and more than one are needed I think, since the source is disputed. As for Thames Head this (from the Environment Agency) may be better for a start. _wjemather^bigissue 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added that reference. Perhaps you might be able to add other references if you feel it is necessary . Michael Glass (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding rounding errors in "Catchment area and discharge"

Previously, the figures in this sentence were based on the square miles given in the source. This introduced a small rounding error when it was reconverted into square km. To avoid this I have used the primary figures in the source as a basis for the information displayed in this section. In the html only the figures in square kilometres appear. However, the display in the article remains miles first. This arrangement satisfies two objectives: having accurate information in the article, but putting the miles first. (I have also kept the coding so that only whole miles appear in the text.) I hope that this arrangement suits those editors who prefer miles and square miles. Michael Glass (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article title / nomenclature

Disclaimer: I'm an american, I don't live in England, but this is from observations on how various UK river articles are written.

It seems that 'Thames' is the name of the river, not 'River Thames'. This is unlike in America, where we acutally use names like 'Columbia River' as the full name of the river.

With this in mind, would it be more appropriate to move all the various River ___ articles to just ____, e.g. River Thames --> Thames? Where there are collisions in names, we can use (river) to dab... e.g. River Churn --> Churn (river). Likewise, the opening bolded section of the article should be reduced:

The River Thames ... blah blah blah blah.

What do you guys think? -User:Atanamir (134.134.137.73 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

In the UK almost all rivers are named "River XXXX". I'm sure someone else will tell you why, but thats just the it is here. So no need to rename. Hope that helps. Jamsta (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Referring to "the Thames" is exactly parallel to referring to "the Mississippi". The formal names of these are "River Thames" and "(the) Mississippi River" respectively. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"River Thames" is effectively the official name. This Google.co.uk search (after stripping out many instances of Thames, and after further ingnoring other uses) generally indicates "River Thames". Personally, if I were writing a letter to some sort of official body, I would instinctively refer to "the River Thames", not "the Thames". And in practice, Londoners and many others in the south east of England refer to the river as simply "the river", rather than "the Thames. (However, User:Atanamir has posed an interesting question that I've never really thought about. Thinking about other major rivers, I'd refer to "the Nile" or "the river Nile" interchangeably, "the Yellow River", "the River Plate", "the Danube", "the Amazon". Interesting. But this is not the appropriate place to discuss these things.)--A bit iffy (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map of the Thames below the info box is off. Southend sits on the estuary further east, London should be a large blob too. Needs to be redone or removed imho

GunnertheGooner (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the Mardyke a major tributary?

The box at the end lists "major tributaries". I'm not sure what qualifies as "major". Would it be appropriate to add the Mardyke? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That box is just a random and partial collection of links and as such is inherently flawed and in my opinion worthless. All tributaries including Mardyke are listed in the linked list of tributaries. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 25, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A westward view of the River Thames passing between the London boroughs of Lambeth and City of Westminster, with the London Eye ferris wheel on the left and the Palace of Westminster in the centre. The Thames is the second-longest river in England and has a special significance in flowing through London, although this is only a short part of its course. Its strategic position has made it a physical and political boundary, as well as the centre of many events in British history.Photo: David Iliff

Doesn't the Thames pass eastward, rather than westward? The view looks westward, and of course the flood tide goes westward, but the ebb tide and the river flow goes eastward. Or am I confused? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I meant to convey that we were facing westward in the photo. Let me see if I can tweak that. howcheng {chat} 18:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is the longest river in England. The longer River Severn flows partially in Wales. Motmit (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I changed the lead sentence from "The River Thames is a major river..." to "The Thames is a major river..." for obvious reasons. If a reader comes to the River Thames article, then it's a fair bet that they will already know that it is a river (if not the article title should give them a clue.) Either way though, saying that "the Thames is a river" covers it pretty well. Motmit has reverted on the grounds that "Lead should reflect article name" but that's not the case per WP:MOS. Here's what it says....

"If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive....the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Here the article title clearly is descriptive.

"Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article. Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." That it's a river clearly is given by the article name. "River X is a river" is as close as it gets to redundancy.

That page also says (in note 6 at the bottom) "Remember that the title need not always appear in the lead if the article title is descriptive" and here river in the article title is pretty descriptive for what the Thames is.

There is an exception given... "The Oxford English Dictionary has to be called by its proper name in its article, and cannot be called anything other than a dictionary in the first sentence." This is fair enough, as saying "The Oxford English is a dictionary" doesn't work however saying the Thames alone is perfectly acceptable, used for example in this BBC article among countless other examples. Accordingly I'll revert this per the MOS. Valenciano (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is officially known as the "River Thames". What a silly fuss one individual has come along and decided to make about using the word river in the longer explanation of what sort of river it is.Motmit (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Try addressing the points I've raised instead of putting up Straw man arguments. I haven't said we can't explain what kind of river it actually is. On the contrary my wording of "The Thames is a major river...." explains it pretty well, no? WP:MOSLEAD above is very clear. "Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article.... When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." As the Thames is a perfectly acceptable variation that's what the MOS says we should use. Incidentally the MOS doesn't say anything about official names. Valenciano (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To take your concerns into account though, I've rewritten the lead slightly. The sections about it being the longest river entirely in England belong in the lead and establish the fact that it's a major river. It also avoids the type of stupid and pointless redundancy inherent in saying that the river x is a river. Valenciano (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

An awful lot of pointless verbiage from someone who is suggesting that one word is redundant, but I guess you are having a bad reaction to being reverted. Note that "River House" is a building, "River Studios" are recording studios and so it is not actually superfluous to state that it is a river. Moreover we are not just saying it is a river - we are giving a description that includes the word river. I do not have an issue with that and nor do all the thousands of people who have read that sentence in the last four or more years, but perhaps we all have funny little foibles. Please note that British Rivers nearly all have the proper name beginning River and so do not edit in disregard of this in future, por favor. Motmit (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are some buildings or studios which flow through southern England, then it's unlikely readers would assume that. You're right on one thing, there are a lot of articles that have contained mindless crap for a fair amount of time which needs cleaned up. You edit in disregard of the manual of style if you want. I'll not be doing so. Ciao. Valenciano (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like "Mount Everest is the world's highest mountain". You had better go and sort that out Motmit (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah because Mount and Mountain are exactly the same aren't they? The same way I guess that people need to be told that no recording studios and buildings flow through southern England, right? Not doing very well here Motmit are you? Anyway I'd love to stay and chat some more but we do have WP:NOTFORUM to bear in mind you know. So you keep telling people that a river is a river and I'll no doubt see you around in the future. Uz drīz redzēšanos! Valenciano (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

'As a Londoner# it is either the 'River Thames' or 'The Thames' - while Mount Everest has to be distinguished from its eponym (who did not particularly want the honour). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

River Thames on London wiki

Could 'the proverbial someones' update the article ([3]) so that it reflects a London centric view (and is somewhat more up to date). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

pollution

I worry that the article was written by a vested interest given that the Thames is so well known for its pollution that a medical condition bears its name "Thames Tummy", which is hardly surprising given that half a million cubic metres of sewage is dumped into the Thames weekly. More commentary on the pollution is definitely warranted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.145.228 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Route Map

I have opened the route map up. Is it too dominating (so that it should be retained in its closed form), or does it give a good overview? Martinvl (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text to reduce it from 400 px to 350 px. Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Have closed it as it is as you say too dominating. Motmit (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The map as it stands seems to include and exclude things at random - is any rationale used for exclusion? Random missing examples are Rotherhithe Tunnel, Millennium Bridge, River Lea. Pterre (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The rationale is given in the template file. I included main line railway bridges and road bridges that carried principal roads. The Rotherhithe tunnel carries a local road, so I excluded it, likewise the Millenium Bridge (though I am open to persusion on this one). The Lea River was an oversight. If I found that a market town was missing, I added the most significant river feature associated with that town so that the town was in the list (eg Windsor and Eton). For purposes of this rule, I regarded London boroughs as being part of London.

In short, I tried to avoid creating a template that had 400 entries. Martinvl (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the River Wandle, River Brent and Grand Union Canal, the Regent's Canal, the River Roding, River Darent etc etc? To me this seems, like the article, to significantly overlook the port. Pterre (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Thames is a huge topic and the article itself is of course selective. Comprehensive detail is dealt with in the subsidiary articles including the various lists and the Tideway article that covers the port and the small length of the river that passes through London. The items that are given in the article itself are those that are particularly notable or provide examples of different types (of bridge, island, tributary, lock). However randomly selected entries that appear in a cut down template are going to be just that - and the same applies to the Thames template at the foot of the article. Every lock reach has its own map template which is or should be complete and so this does provide a detailed route map in sections for the non-tidal river. Making a comprehensive route map of the whole Thames is going to result in something that will appear too big or too selective and hence will be inherently flawed. However I would not want to discourage someone who wants to create something they think might be useful. There is still scope for a detailed route map on the Tideway article. I would point out, though, that this template was created by someone who prefers metric measures, which makes it of less value to those most likely to want to use the information. Motmit (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the intention is for the tidal Thames to be covered by Tideway rather than River Thames this shold be made clear in the lead paragraph. The 94-odd miles of tidal river below Teddington are after all by far the more economically significant. Pterre (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy of answer to Pterre's raising this on my TP. The Tideway article is a way of providing the sort of detail for the tidal reach that is given for the non-tidal reach in the 45 individual lock articles. That does not mean exluding any important details of the tidal reach from the main article any more than it means excluding important details from the non-tidal reaches. However much of the trivial flotsom that gets chucked in the river by people in London ends up on the Tideway both in real life and in Wikiworld!Motmit (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that some arbitrary decisions have been made over what to include and what to exclude - some locks are there others aren't. The template should either include all locks or none of them, ditto junctions with tributaries, bridges etc otherwise it stops being encyclopaedic. If you want an example of how to deal with a large number of features check out Template:Canal du Midi map. I agree with the collapsing btw. Best, nancy 16:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this sees a sensible way to go. Divided up in this way all locks, bridges, tunnels, tributaries and canals, dock trances etc could be included. Pterre (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the route map that I produced was to give an overview and by definition I had use my judgement and miss a few things out. I am concerned that very few locks are shown - are there any locks that have particular note that I have missed out? I am also working on adding the major rivers that enter the Thames in its tidal water.

I have heard from other groups that if an artcile has too many templates, computer programs blow and producing a single ginormous map for the Thames might just do that. That is not to say that there is no scope for a number of detailed route maps, but not everything in a single map. Martinvl (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"by definition I had to use my judgement" - precisely. That is what makes it WP:OR and unencyclopaedic - it really has to be all or nothing wrt locks etc. I don't know if you have looked at the Canal du Midi template I linked to above but I really do think that its approach would solve the (real and imagined) problems you mention; I would suggest using the established divisions of Upper, Middle and Lower as a start and see how it goes. If you need help with mechanics of dividing the template into independent collapsible sections give me a shout. Best, nancy 08:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Canal du Midi route map. In my view the breaks in the line representing canal when you switch between collapsible and non-collapsible sections look awful. I would not want to replicate that. Unless a way can be found to overcome that problem, I would not want to repeat it on the Thames route map. Martinvl (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion to which you are of course entitled. Whether that chimes with consensus is yet to be established nancy 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to Tideway to the top of the article. Perhaps we should now add a route map to Tideway? Pterre (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that the routemap is currently represents an arbitrarily selected (sub)set of features and is still a work in progress, I propose that it is removed from the article until it is complete. nancy 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you visit the template page, you will see a statement showing how choices were made - the choice was far from arbitrary - I tried to keep the length of the map within reason. There are a few minor additions that I still which to make - mainly rivers into the tidal section of the river. Since it is an overview, the debate is really how to set cut-off points. Maybe yo uwoudl like to go to the template and comment of the selection that has been made.

I have tried to include:

• All market towns (I regard London as a single market town).
• All principal railway bridges (I need to give a refenence the railway map that I used
• All principal road bridges
• Features (mainly locks) that denote a change in navigational circumstance
• Rivers whose discharge is catalogued in the Wikipedia article (non-tidal section) or whose basin is large enought to be catalogued in the same list (tidal rivers).

Do you have nay objection to these categories?

Martinvl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to step back and decide exactly what we are trying to achieve with this "diagrammatical representation" and what value it does or could add to the article.Motmit (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hit an edit conflict thre. My comments:

• Do you mean Greater London? If so that's very broad. If not what definition? Why are Dagenham or Erith (say) less significant than Wallingford or Marlow?
• What about the docks? Many are still there, with (navigationally) active links to the river.
• Why ignore the main canals - you have included the Kennet & Avon and the Wey Navigation. Do the Grand Union at Brentford and Regents at Limehouse not constitute a change in navigational circumstances?
• I think at least rivers of the significance of the Wandle and Brent need to be included, whatever their discharge. Pterre (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Something that has been mentioned previously: What about the named reaches of the river below London Bridge - of considerable navigational significance as the river winds its way to the sea. Pterre (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep banging on but also I'm sure most of the unlinked things in the list (eg Chiswick Bridge, Bow Creek, etc) have articles and should be links. Pterre (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The file is editable, isn't it? Can't you make them links? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously (though I am recovering from removal of an eye on Thursday so would prefer not to). But at present we are discussing what to do with the template, so probably the fewer people who fiddle with it the better. Pterre (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the op. I've added the two links you suggested, and a few more. I agree that we probably shouldn't try to restructure the file while it's under discussion, but I hope that nobody's going to argue with the links. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently looking for a clear two or three hours when I am not occupied with real life or with other Wikipedia articles to insert the following:

• Barking Creek/River Roding
• Regents Canal
• River Wandle
• River Brent/Grand Union Canal
• River Darwent/Dartford Creek

I am perparing new icons for non-navigable rives that have flood protection sluice gates for use where appropriate. We can look at the London boroughs once everything else is done - most boroughs that border the river should already have been mentioned. If one or two are missing, then we can look for the most appropriate river feature to identify them. On the other hand if two boroughs are named on the same line of text, the map will have to be widened to accomodate them - I managed to get it down to 350 px.

Martinvl (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rivers have been added as suggested. Martinvl (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative etymology

a link with Tamara ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamar_of_Georgia would this be possible ? indicating the fertility of the landscape enhanced by the river — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.104.238 (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thames River Basin

The Environment Authority gives information on the Thames River Basin that may be worth adding to the article: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33130.aspx

It gives an area of 16 133 km² for the area of what they call "The Thames River Basin District" (which includes the Medway) but this is significantly larger than the figures given in the article at present. There is quite a lot of information that could be added to the article and the Environment Authority would be a reliable source but using it would mean some changes to the present text. Michael Glass (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats alright, if its relevant information and a reliable source, the info should be changed. Although it would be best to post the changes here also so there is no edit war or anything.Millertime246 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll follow that up a little later. Michael Glass (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Draft

The following wording is a draft of what I have in mind. Two things need to be noted:

• I have replaced unreferenced sentences with sentences that have been drawn from the Environment Agency.
• There seems to be a difference between London's water supply and the water supply of the area as a whole, which comes more from aquifers.

According to one source, the river drains a catchment area of 12,935.77 square kilometres (4,995 sq mi) ²) or 15,343 square kilometres (5,924 sq mi) if the River Medway is included as a tributary. However, the Environment Agency states that the Thames River Basin District, which includes the Medway catchment, covers an area of 16,133 square kilometres (6,229 sq mi). The river basin includes both rural and heavily urbanised areas in the east and northern parts while the western parts of the catchment are predominantly rural. The area is among the driest in the United Kingdom. Water resources consist of reservoirs, aquifers and the River Thames itself. The Thames itself provides two thirds of London’s drinking water while groundwater supplies about 40 per cent of public water supplies in the total catchment area.

Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest dropping the first sentence and reference as it is unsourced but appears to come from earlier EA information. It would be useful to link or reference the map at [4] (perhaps after the sentence ending "predominantly rural". The last para from the EA source is quite importatnt as it refers to groundwater and seepage and economic vulnerability. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Motmit. Agreed about the first sentence and its source. All the other information in the draft above came from the Environmental Agency which states "The western parts of the catchment are predominantly rural with towns such as Oxford and Swindon concentrated along the M40 and M4 motorway corridors." so I would be inclined to put the link to the map at the end of the paragraph. Agreed about the last sentence of the EA report. Here is a revised draft to take those points into account:

The Thames River Basin District, including the Medway catchment, covers an area of 16,133 square kilometres (6,229 sq mi). The river basin includes both rural and heavily urbanised areas in the east and northern parts while the western parts of the catchment are predominantly rural. The area is among the driest in the United Kingdom, water resources consisting of reservoirs, aquifers and the River Thames itself. The Thames itself provides two thirds of London’s drinking water while groundwater supplies about 40 per cent of public water supplies in the total catchment area. Groundwater is an important water source, especially in the drier months, so maintaining its quality and quantity is extremely important. Groundwater is vulnerable to surface pollution, especially in highly urbanised areas.

Any other suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is in this particular context but the reservoirs referred to almost all (all ?) store water pumped either from the Thames itself or from the River Lea. Mentioning sources of water as from the Thames and from reservoirs may convey the meaning that these are different and separate sources when they are in fact the same water.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions about how to refine the wording to prevent this misreading? Michael Glass (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How about making it two sentences that read :

The area is among the driest in the United Kingdom. Water resources consist of ground-water from aquifers and water taken from the Thames and its tributaries, much of it stored in large bank-side reservoirs.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Michael Glass (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Name

Why is it referred to as the River Thames and not the Thames River?Cousert (talk)

As with all (well the vast majority) of rivers in England, the word river comes first. One might rather ask why is the Mississippi River not called the River Mississippi? Pterre (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Etymology: "IE"

What does "IE" mean? not linked to, or explained in the text. Thanks!--mgaved (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Resolved. Adam37 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional culture

Is it worth mentioning that it featured during the opening sequence fpr the London 2012 Olympics? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YHDfLxZi0 and, for that matter, that its shape as it passes through London has been the basis of the Eastenders titles and I presume, but do not know, the London Weekend Television 'The River' idents.2.31.102.115 (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I and User:Beaglepack would not want to single out that in this article. That is more for London or associations with London as both are passing fads, and it is not really very geographical, just a map.

Interesting parts missing

The River Thames is unusual from some perspectives. Great Britain has insufficient surface and mountains to form a long river. Is all relevant data included? Is the drainage basin of the river, annual amount of cubic meters discharged included ? Both as actual sum of fresh and sea water that flows at the defined endpoint (the mouth or estuary) in both directions - and the annual amount of freshwater flow only. There is also the salinity question - how far up does seawater reach. Questions liks this are very interesting, I think. The shape of the river's very broad estuary mouth is a difficult point to define where the river ends and the lack of delta formations, and the rate of how the breadth of this estuary if defined all the way to the end of the Essex Coast widens would be very sudden (in comparison with most other rivers) as increases rapidly in the last 30 km or 20 miles - suggesting to me that River Thames is a fairly little river that is very affected by the tide. Without the "tide factor" River Thames would be a lot narrower through London and perhaps a smaller delta would have been shaped. This is not science but my wonders about the River Thames. But with more actual figures and data of the river my "theories" could eighter be right or wrong. But I'm curious. So if possible please add as much data as possible. Even average water temperatures is of interest. 83.249.38.132 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

However the river itself ceases in being a river really where its first dramatic widening takes place below the villages of West Thurrock, Grays and Tilbury and not its official endpoint which is defined for the purposes of shipping and lifesaving. Sea itself has clearly eroded the banks right up to Greenwich, particularly where salt marshes abound, extended along two slim tranches of Kent and Essex. With storms and previous warm periods (beyond what we consider the mean or normal) the coast has eroded back to form these. As suggested, this is seen by interaction of river floods and the sea helping to widen the Kent/Essex Channel and reduce elevation of adjoining banks. Therefore we have complete sea also: the correct term for the enormous expanse between Allhallows on Sea and Southend on Sea is the Kent/Essex Channel of the North Sea which runs to about Whitstable by marshes almost throughout on each side, few cliffs and with a host of bird and insect conservation protected reserves, like the Wat Tyler Country Park, with increasingly brackish (semi-salt) estuarine marshes further upstream such as Erith and Rainham Marshes. So most of the points need to be addressed — measuring amount of salinity of the Tideway can go there, not without any use, see Thames Water Desalination Plant deployed during population-induced drought and when there are depleted boreholes, however only during three hours of ebb to ensure water is not too salty and therefore expensive to treat. Save in times of Thames flooding the salinity of St Mary's Hoo/Canvey Island is essentially 100% of sea level, and certainly 100% in the open water at Westcliff-on-Sea and Southend on Sea.

See [5] for marshes and elevations. Adam37 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Brackish water for where someone writing with scientific sources from the website river-thames.org (dubious) explains the salinity at Gravesend, Kent and Canvey Island, Essex is that of the sea. On that measure at least, as opposed to wading birds and deposition of silt, the estuary ends there. The question is too vexed to answer at all categorically, I like to join most others on the Thames I know who think there is an 'Essex/Kent strait' (or 'Sea Reach' of navigation) which is not the river, particularly off Sheerness and Southend-on-Sea.- Adam37 Talk 21:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary has lost the following

[More recently] (ignore, we all hate this, it's almost always been true what follows and offends WP:REALTIME)

the river has become a major leisure area supporting tourism and pleasure outings as well as the sports of rowing, sailing, skiffing, kayaking, and punting. The river has had a special appeal to writers, artists, musicians and film-makers and is well represented in the arts. It is still the subject of various debates about its course, nomenclature and history.

Now the above is la-de-da as well as WP:PEACOCK, specifically duplication in tourism and pleasure outings, which have much overlap, WP:weasel words such as special which set experienced editors alarms off. And who cares about a summary of the esoteric side debates? They're obvious wherever the words: uncertain, doubtful, or argued, alleged, submitted are put into the text as well! However perhaps User:Beaglepack might wanted to mention its banks' use for an open-air theatre setting (eg Garrick's villa Hampton, London), through to pop music (Waterloo Sunset by David Bowie to London Calling by the Clash? The word watersports would be helpful too. It seems a tad of an over-reaction if completely understandable deletion of anything promoting this God-forsaken Isle??? (Tongue-in-cheek I love exposing Britain in truth from tip to toe).- Adam37 Talk 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Waterloo Sunset was written by Ray Davies and performed by the Kinks. Nothing to do with Bowie!Johnnyf1nn (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

236 miles (380 km)??

Under the Summary section the Thames' length is given as 236 miles (380 km). Where is the reference for this?Johnnyf1nn (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

New image

Tower Bridge view at dawn

I'd like to propose a new image for this article. This annotated image shows the Thames with HMS Belfast and many of the modern buildings close to the Thames, as well as the Tower of London. -- Colin°^Talk 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on River Thames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071206031534/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk:80/news/1721484 to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/1721484

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pollution of the river?

It looks very dark brown. Pollution level? is it a clean river? moderate? etc. Is it just high in minerals? CaribDigita (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC) The brown appearance is likely due to alluvium.92.40.12.161 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Thames underwent a marked improvement in levels of pollution after a nadir in 1959 when it was declared biologically dead! I would like to see the wildlife section in two parts: fish and waterfowl. There is not enough good information here. A starter is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead Szczels (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long

At seven paragraphs, it looks like the lead is way overblown, even by MOS:LEAD's recommendation of four paragraphs. Even the World War II article's lead isn't as huge. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for route map, length and catchment area

Is there a source for the route map in the text? I cannot locate it and a Thames-distance indication is not given in Tributaries of the River Thames (that would be a nice addition there). From the route map I learned that its traditional and infoboxed but unsourced 346 km length is measured from Thames Head all the way to the mouth of River Crouch at Foulness Point; in other words, including the entire estuary. (This makes any length contest with River Severn a mute point, as Severn's traditional length of 354 km excludes its very long estuary). On the other hand, the traditional and infoboxed but unsourced 12,935 km2 catchment area corresponds to that from about Dartford 51 km further upstream, if my estimates are right. In support, Rivers Darent and opposite Mardyke at that location are the first tributaries of the Thames named in our list). It would be nice to confirm where this is measured from. The most downstream gauging station (with precise catchment data) is unfortunately 59 km further upstream again (near Kingston; I think right at the Teddington Boundary Stone) with a catchment area of 9948 km2 [6]. In our text an area of 16,130 km2 is mentioned, but the nicely archived reference says "The Thames River Basin District covers an area of 16,133 square kilometres includes the River Thames and its tributaries from its source in Gloucestershire through London to the North Sea, and the Medway catchment which drains north Kent, joining the Thames Estuary in its outer reaches." Apparently, the Medway officially seems not considered a tributary of the Thames, while the route map has it as a tributary 7 km in. If 346 km and 12,935 km2 are both official numbers, they may be hard to fight, but they are inconsistent with each other. Afasmit (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The beach

I'm trying to find any information about a temporary beach on the Thames in the vicinity of Tower Bridge in, I believe, the 1940s or 50s. I think I have seen a photograph of it. Although I have to say that a TV documentary that I recently saw about archaeologists in the same area - 'mudlarking', talked about "one or two hours of low tide", which would probably make the whole thing impracticable.

If there is any credence to the beach, it might be a good idea to include it in a section of the article, (suitably referenced of course) - which is obscenely long, by the way. I realise that my proposal is no help, but hey ho.

RASAM (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

→Local detail that belongs if anywhere under Tideway. Motmit (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you use Twitter, there are a couple of mudlarkers you could ask: @TideLineArt and @liz_lizanderson.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@RASAM: The Horsleydown Old Stairs has a great beach at low tide. [7] It's a comfortable place to eat lunch, with plenty of old broken concrete slabs to sit on. Sometimes you see tech workers on their laptops. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

The website “How old is English?” (retrieved 20 September 2015) is twice used for referencing some pseudo-Germanic etymologies for Thames and London in the Etymology section. It is however nothing more than a personal website trying to reinvent the entire history of Indo-European languages without any decent phonetic background. The author's theories are not supported by evidence and (as far as I know) not accepted by anybody else in the scientific community. Why should it be referenced here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:8854:A700:226:BBFF:FE10:9C00 (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, proto-english.org is an appallingly bogus source that I have now removed. Zacwill (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Thames has the same origin as Timiș River (Hungarian: Temes, Serbian: Tamiš)–pronounced as Teemish–in nowadays Romania. I suspect that both have Celtic (Gaellic) origins and Thames may simply mean (a specific color, e.g. gray) + river.–––––Mazarin07 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

fauna

sharks were found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:35CF:4100:AC4B:AFD4:9328:AE79 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, here they are: [8], [9], etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"the river"

"Londoners often refer to it simply as "the river" in expressions such as "south of the river"." People in any city with a river use such expressions about their river. How is this notable for the Thames?--Khajidha (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Has now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tidying up.

Can we tidy up both the templates for Thames summary route map and Thameside settlements. They are considerably large and cumbersome and do not make the best use of space. JMorgan1987 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

London flooding 05/06/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasDidntShrug (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Length of the Thames

We have authoritative claims both in the lede and in the body of the articles giving an exact length of the Thames. However we have no sources for that at all. This seems to be an issue with many rivers with well-meaning editors probably getting out their OS maps and lengths of string to come to a number. It would be good to have an reliable source that defines a length with a specific end point and a specific source (whichever it might be).  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have provided a reference for the length of the Thames (measured from Thames Head to the Nore) whereas no reference had previously been provided. I am concerned however that is possible that the author of the book from which it comes may have taken that figure from Wikipedia in the first instance as it was certainly in the article prior to the publication of the book. I simply don't know but thought I should record the observation. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The Children's Encyclopedia by Arthur Mee predates computers and so its figure cannot have come from Wikipedia OrewaTel (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately its value for the Thames's length is rounded to 210 miles. OrewaTel (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Europe20000ya.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Murray Fairview (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Mouth of the Thames.

Have you rembered to note the speciality of the sand in the mouths of the Thames? Murray Fairview (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not obvious what you are saying here. Care to explain more? thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)