Talk:River Wey

Course changes

In september 1968,after a lot of heavy rain,the Wey ran amuk in Farnham,rising above South Street bridge.As a result of this,in the early'70s,the river was diverted,the coils in the water meadows being turned into a gentle curve,the weir in Gostrey Meadow dissappeared.East of South Street,a gentle curve or 2 were introduced and worst of all,the six foot drop dissappeared! I remember seeing the river suddenley turning 90 degrees,at a fall,which went down,over some steps.After itn turned,it went to another fall,which just dropped.This was right by the edge of the by-pass. 6' it was not,2'6",more like it,but whats in a name?Below the weirs,it was probably 4' deep,full of fish,chub,carp,bream,roach,dace and minnows. Now,there are chub,minnows and shopping trolleys! Does any one have any photos of the river as it was in the 60's,I would be pleased to see some,would be prepared to buy some,a soppy old wey lover

remove canal info

I'd like to remove the info about the canal which is different to the river. They run parallel and are intertwined but a river is different to a canal. I've made a new proper page for the canal.SuzanneKn 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

A couple of months ago I attempted to rename this article from River Wey to River Wey, Surrey. It was changed back; unfortunately this was done by editing rather than moving, thus losing the page history – now split between the two articles (see Help:Moving a page). Neither change was done with discussion. I suggest we now do discuss the name and decide what it should be.

The basic problem is that River Wey is the name of two rivers, which therefore need disambiguation. My view is that River Wey is not the appropriate name for the Surrey river, as the Dorset river also has a claim on it.

The solution that I attempted to implement (and which I ought to have discussed first) is to have River Wey as a dab, and move this page to River Wey, Surrey. This seems to me to be a straightforward application of MOS:DAB. The need to correct links from other articles is not a sufficient reason to keep a mis-named article.

Whatever the page is finally called, an admin's help will be needed to re-merge it with its history. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi RNF - I fail to understand a current obsession (not directed specifically at RNF) for creating disambig pages when there are only two instances, and I remember someone else having a go about it and probably quoting some wikilaw. A hatnote is perfectly adequate for direct linking two or even three similar instances. With it, there is at least a 50% chance of a correct first time hit, whereas a disambig page means everybody has to go through two pages. Editing is more difficult and tedious when every link needs a suffix. The rule as I understand it is that the primary use gets the simple name - not that both instances have to have complex names (there are thousands of places worldwide which have the same name as common English places but we do not suffix all the English versions). This could be a separate debate but even if it is questionable whether Surrey has a better claim, the rule generally seems to respect the one that got there first. I reverted the former change when I saw just how many articles needed to be reedited but the person on the Surrey project to whom I put out a call for help with restoring history seems to have packed up editing. Motmit (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'what links here' for the Dorset river will be thoroughly skewed through its inclusion in the navi-box. Removing it from that will allow you to see how many times it is directly linked, and I would expect the Surrey river, being much longer, much more populated, and navigable, will have many more links to it, and is likely to attract a greater proportion of new links in the future.

I support Motmit's argument that a hatnote is adequate here.

EdJogg (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. The Surrey river is more likely to be searched for, and so is a dominant usage. To be honest, having been brought up within a mile or so of the Surrey one, that's the only one I knew of, despite now living quite close to the other one...

I don't agree that the "rule is to respect the one that got there first". If it's right, it's right, if it isn't it isn't. First dibs would only count (as arguably here) where all other things were equal. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is a similar issue with the River Mole, River Mole, Surrey and River Mole, Devon articles. For consistency with the River Wey article, it would probably be best to move River Mole, Surrey to River Mole, but I'm not sure how to do it. If someone is feeling bold, could they move it for me? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I have some sympathy. It is probably better to highlight your proposal on the relevant article talk pages. Then get an admin to do it as there is an existig article and just moving text risks losing history. Motmit (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have now got round to requesting the move of River Mole, Surreyto River Mole. Objections and support welcome at Talk:River Mole, Surrey. Mertbiol (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No revert has happened or debate since 2008/9. Just to add weight from map research, you can see the main English River Wey's south route rises just about in Sussex and both north and south routes drain parts of of eastern Hampshire. Overall with both north and south branches, the wey in Dorset is less than half as long, and has a population of its drainage basin including Weymouth of less than one fifth. Weymouth is a sea harbour with yachts and its rather unknown-to-visitors river partly behind. I therefore "move" to keep the status quo (I'm just reinforcing it). Incidentially Upwey has its attraction of the Wey, Dorset but its steep, picturesque rolling valley, apparently mirrors the Guildford gap; not that tourism is what wikipedia is for per WP:NOT.Adam37 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Flooding December 2013

There are many pictures and stories in BBC News about the flooding of the River Wey in Hampshire and Surrey. Example is some of the pictures in the URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25518359 Perhaps these should be added to this Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Counties

The second sentence of the lede currently reads (as of 6:05pm on 22nd July 2020):

Its two branches, one of which rises near Alton in Hampshire and the other in West Sussex to the south of Haslemere, join at Tilford (between Guildford and Farnham) in Surrey.

One editor has suggested removing the "in Surrey" at the end of the sentence, on the grounds that the Tilford, Guildford and Farnham links 'suffice' and that "in Surrey" makes the sentence "too cluttered". From my perspective, I think that "in Surrey" should be included, because we give the counties of the two sources (Hampshire and West Sussex), but more importantly, the vast majority of the river is in Surrey. (In fact the majority of the west of the county is in the Wey drainage basin.) Please discuss and give your opinions on including the counties here. Mertbiol (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought comparing with other articles on Thames tributaries might be helpful. These are all from the second sentence of the relevant articles:

River Medway: It rises in the High Weald, Sussex and flows through Tonbridge, Maidstone and the Medway conurbation in Kent, before emptying into the Thames Estuary near Sheerness, a total distance of 70 miles (113 km).

River Lea: It originates in the Bedfordshire part of the Chiltern Hills, and flows southeast through Hertfordshire and then Greater London, sometimes through several channels, to ultimately meet the River Thames, the last looping section being known as Bow Creek.

River Cherwell: It rises near Hellidon in Northamptonshire and flows south through Oxfordshire for 40 miles (64 km) to meet the Thames at Oxford.

Also the start of the second paragraph of the River Kennet article: The River Kennet from near its sources west of Marlborough in Wiltshire down to Woolhampton in Berkshire is a 111.1-hectare (275-acre) biological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

I think it's very clear from these examples, that including the counties early in the lede is standard practice for Wikipedia articles on Thames tributaries. Mertbiol (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thinking at a tangent, does it really need the bit about Tilford being between Guildford and Farnham? Removing the bit in parentheses would have the effect of decluttering the lede somewhat. Would also remove my bête noir of excessive use of parentheses when commas would do a better job! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Murgatroyd49. You may have cut the Gordian Knot! I will make the change you suggest. I do very much agree that parentheses in the lede are to be avoided where possible. (Some of the Surrey articles are particular severe offenders in this regard.)

It’s a great shame that the editor, whose actions sparked this discussion, has passed up the opportunity to participate and to agree a way forward here. The gentleman concerned is highly experienced and has contributed a considerable amount over many years to Wikipedia, of which he should rightly be proud. Unfortunately by flinging a petulant insult at me, as he did in his last edit summary, he merely embarrasses himself and dishonours his excellent work. An intransigent editor is not one who invites others (twice) to reach consensus on a talk page. Mertbiol (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to him, this lockdown is getting to us all! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rivers of Surrey.

This section would be better placed in the geography section of the article on Surrey. Comments? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposed move. Mertbiol (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I wil do it now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Length

Hmm . . I've been taking a look at the lengths of many British rivers as quoted in Wikipedia and, as often as not, determining that they have been underestimated. That's to say that the figures quoted from Owen et al or EB1911 or else from no obvious reference are often several miles shorter than painstaking measurements that I've made myself. As I've noted on other pages, my measurements are of course original research on my part so cannot be included in the article. I've arrived at each of the new figures by using an online digital tool using 1:25,000 scale OS mapping, cross-checked with aerial photography (wheresthepath website). I'm generally confident of the accuracy of my figures to within better than 1% - but would always welcome confirmation from other parties.

So, I can't put the figures I've derived into any article but they do at least give an idea of what a true figure should look like if and when an editor finds a suitable reference out there! Now when it came to the Wey, I expected something similar but found that I arrived at these figures:

• North branch (starts near Alton): 29km / 18mi
• South branch (starts S of Haslemere): 34km / 21mi
• Combined river from their confluence at Tilford: 57km / 35mi

Adding the figure for the longer south branch to that for the combined river gives 91km / 56 miles which is substantially different from the 140km / 87miles currently presented in the Wey's infobox. It is not immediately obvious what reference the article uses for the quoted river length. However I strongly suspect that higher figure is a result of combining lengths of both upper branches with that of the combined river along with the lengths of the various parallel anabranches - as further complicated by the presence of the Wey Navigation! That would fit with the EA-derived data provided in the table in the 'water quality' section. The EA's interest would be in the water quality (amongst other things) of the various branches rather than in fixing a 'common-sense' length for the Wey. Now that is the length of the river in one sense i.e. the combined length of all the individual sections of it, but hardly the length which most folks browsing the article would be expecting to find.

cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you are right in assuming whoever came up with that figure added the two branches together. Though it still overestimates the length by about 20km. I used the EA data as that is what is the quality assessments are based on but there is no information on how they define the lengths concerned. I assume they come from an official geophysical database but I haven't come across one. The Wey is something of a nightmare with multiple channels and the Navigation threaded through them. Even with your accurate measurements I suspect you can come up with at least half a dozen alternative figures! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right there - there are multiple figures that are 'defensible'! Since these issues affect more than just the Wey, I expect I'll make further enquiries myself to clarify just what is being recorded! Geopersona (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The length of a piece of string might be easier to agree on. There are many possible and valid methodologies. As far as Wikipedia goes it might just be as well to show the range of sourced lengths, perhaps with a note.SovalValtos (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Name

The article states that the origin of the name is unknown, however there is a possibilty that it could derive from the Old English word for river, ea, as in the suffixes of the rivers Welney and Waverney. See The places so good they named them twice Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Southerly source?

I remember being interested in the source of the Wey in the 1980s and physically tracing it to a spring just south of Cotchet Farm on the western side of Blackdown, a little further south of the named fishponds. Can anyone verify this or otherwise? 194.66.93.29 (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)