Talk:River Wharfe

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:River wharfe.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal River Wharfe is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reputation of river

The statement The Wharfe is the most volatile, fastest rising river in the World seems extremely unlikely to be true! And the comment re its reputation as dangerous is surely no more true than for many a river amongst the cautious-minded. Some perspective would benefit this article. Geopersona (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It has gained more reputation after the death of Jimi Heselden died after falling into this river off a cliff ( 27 March 1948- 26 September 2010). This comment added at 18:03, 21 July 2021‎ by ElbertAinstien

The Strid

The Strid redirects here. Should there be more information about The Strid, seeing as it's a rare form of river, the depth of which is yet unmeasured and it has claimed the lives of several tourists? The section on it only uses the word "deceptive" to describe it, which really is a nonsense word (if it's said to be "deceptively deep" it can both mean "not as deep as it seems" or "deeper than it seems"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrit (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The depth of the Strid is known (although not by me) as it has been searched during the recovery of bodies by the Upper Wharfedale Fell Rescue Association at the very least. I believe it to be about 30'. The main problem with the place is that the walls are overhanging, and people can get caught under the overhangs. --Langcliffe (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on The Strid was in the article before I added a lot more of the information you see now. I believe the use of the word "deceptive" is taken verbatim from the tourist leaflet or site. I agree it is ambiguous and needs rewording. If there is a verifiable source that gives a definitive estimate of depth, then I agree it would be useful information. As I understand it The Strid is part of the Wharfe not a separate river in its own right as defined by the RGS, hence the redirect. I think both waterfall entries deserve more information, especially on the Geology.Rimmer1993 (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the section. --Langcliffe (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on The Strid cites a "Grid Reference" as a location. No explanation as to what that means, no links to anything useful. Just a "Grid Reference" and a number. Worthless. 71.231.179.40 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold - if you see something that you believe is "worthless", why not change it and make it better, and let everybody benefit? Langcliffe (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of The Strid

An update is needed but neither original research nor unreferenced material is acceptable.

This is interesting

https://www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/news/19587081.video-shock-youtuber-measures-depth-strid-bolton-abbey

but it's only the local rag. Geofpick (talk)

Geofpick I have a couple of problems with the Youtube video. Firstly, the guy admits on the video that he doesn't know what he is doing. Secondly, I have personally dived the full length of the Strid on a cave rescue practice, and know that it is only a few metres deep. Admittedly, that is "personal research", but the reference given is a good secondary source by a well-known diver with a good reputation who confirms that it is 15' feet deep. I suspect that we currently have the author of the video making repeated attempts to publicise his efforts. I will concede that he is doing a prettty good job, but then it is all too easy to propogate fake news on the web. Langcliffe (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Others have commented on the video about the way he is using the sonar device. He later tries magnet fishing and before that all goes pear shaped he is looking at 10 to 15 metres only. Geofpick (talk)

The author of the video posted an update where he acknowledged the problems with his sonar technique, highlighted two comments from people who had dived the Strid and reported the depth as 5-10 meters, and apologized for misleading people in his enthusiasm for his results.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/scuba-divers-say-yorkshires-killer-21614095

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-a50R4s94

Sgrandpre (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

The statements contained within the first paragraph of this section are not substantiated by either of the references (one of which is of dubious value anyway), and run counter to my experience of the area. I intend to remove this paragraph unless persuaded otherwise. --Langcliffe (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference as it stands for the Wharfequest site takes you to the home page, whereas it should have referenced the natural history page where the detail was taken from and would have shown how it could substantiate the wording. Whether the site is dubious or not is a matter of debate, I don't have an axe to grind if it is felt not worthy, it was just a source. The site does credit the Wharfedale Naturalists' Society for its source, so does that alter the perception? I would be careful when trying to make a point of bringing personal experience into an argument on Wikipedia as it would suggest opinion driving the article not fact backed by reliable sources. That then brings us back to he point, are the sources worthy as being quoted as reliable? Let's get a consensus before rushing into editing. Alternatively, come up with a counter argument that has reliable sources, which may make it better.Rimmer1993 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - then I suggest that we should have a more accurate reference that does back up the article. The problem I have is with the cattle versus sheep on the uplands. The cattle population has risen enormously since 2001. This has been partly for economic reasons, and partly to improve biodiversity. e.g. see http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/lookingafter/projectwork/limestonecountryproject/lcp-downloads/lcp-report3-nativecattle.pdf I agree with you to a certain extent about "personal experience", but some people take this to the extreme (not in this case, I hasten to add). I have known editors swear black is white in articles simply because they have found a website that says so. The reservations I have with this particular site is that despite being five years old, it is extremely sparse, and that over half of its history on Upper Wharefdale is actually about Airedale and Ribblesdale. In my opinion much of the site lacks credibility, although the articles by the Wharfedale Naturalists' Society are good. Anyway, I'll leave the article as it is. --Langcliffe (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the considered reply. I take your points on board, and will get around to looking for something more reliable and substantial in due course, but it may take a while.Rimmer1993 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the contested opening paragraph into two with more reliable sources. As i couldn't find a second source that backed the Wharfequest claims, I have removed it until such time as some proper data can be found to show the changes in livestock farming.Rimmer1993 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:River Wharfe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS e.g. units on measurements

Keith D 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on River Wharfe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length of river

A figure for the length of the Wharfe is given in the lede and infobox (104.6km / 65 miles) - its not quite certain that Owen et al is the ref for that but I presume that it is. Given the apparently varying accuracy of figures from that book, I have, as with some other watercourses where possibly questionable lengths have been asserted, painstakingly measured its length on online 1:25,000 scale OS mapping using a digital tool and determined it (from Beckermonds to its confluence with the Ouse) at 121.8km / 75.7 miles. If the furthest reaches of Oughtershaw Beck and of Green Field Beck are added to give the length of the physical river rather than the 'cultural' one, then a further 7.7km / 4.8mi or 7.6km / 4.7mi need to be added - Oughtershaw is longer by about 100m but a pretty close call). I'd be confident of the accuracy of each of those figures to within 1%. This is of course original research on my part so cannot be included in the article but it does at least give an idea of what a true figure should look like if and when an editor finds a suitable reference out there! cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]