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)