This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles
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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
As well as Hope mill, there were the following mills:- Glassenbury, Paley*, Paper, Little Pall, Bedgebury furnace, Chingley Forge, Chingley Furnace, Etchinghole, Triggs. Those in italics were on the Bewl or tribs thereof, Those in bold on the Teise itself. Those in bold italics were on tributaries of the Teise. Those marked with * were on tributaries of the Beult. The others need to be located still. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the removal of the watermills from this article. This article is about the river, which includes the watermills as a part of the river. It also has the capacity to cover other aspects, such as wildlife, flooding etc. The four articles on the Medway watermills concentrate solely on the watermills. Not evey tributary of the Medway has an article of its own. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the river, yes. The watermills are on the river, yes. However, there are two problems with the article as it is, both insurmountable as far as I can see:
The exact same information is in another article. There are very many Wiki articles where detailed information of this type is broken out into a separate article with a Main Article tag. Either the other article should be deleted (but see below), or the information should be removed from this one. We cannot have it twice.
This level of detail of watermills is not appropriate in an article about a river. The article is about the river, and all that needs to be said is that there are watermills and some general information about them, not the size, type, age, location and number of cogs of every one of them. The general information could be, for example, how the Teise watermills are different from those of other rivers, or a summary of how they fit into the mills of the Medway system.
I am all in favour of Wiki covering watermills, but the coverage should be encyclopaedic. Mere lists of data get dangerously close to the sort of lists precluded by WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Personally I think the lists do (just) qualify for Wikipedia, but certainly not muddled up with proper articles. --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree. Ideally, I'd like every mill to have its own article but I'm not going to create 50,000 stubs in order to achieve this. The majority of articles I create go in at either Start or B Class. The watermills are "at home" in the river article where a river has its own article. Those mills on the smaller tributaries have their own article, with the info from the larger rivers copied there so that the reader doesn't have to keep switching between articles to follow the whole story. The main problem with the watermills is that they do not receive as much interest as windmills, which makes it much harder to get enough material to write an individual article on a watermill than it is for a windmill.
The details of mill machinery is given to enable comparisons to be made between individual mills. This info is only given where a source can be found. I know a lot more about some of the mills than I've been able to add, but I am obeying the rules about Original Research. Kent watermills have good coverage now, with the exception of the River Rother and its tributaries and the Ravensbourne and other rivers in the part of Kent which was absorbed into London in 1888.
I admit that the watermills do have greater coverage than they should have in proportion to the article as a whole. The solution to this is to expand other areas of coverage, not to delete the watermills from the article, which would go back to Stub class if that was done. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, its good to see you are showing an interest in the rivers of Kent. For a long time this has been a lonely place- I see that Ecology is one of your specialities- I haven't dared to start on that, if we go back to Anne Pratt and the great early botanists there must be records of their finding in Medway, Beult and Teise valleys. The problem with Kent is that it has been so influential in the development of science and industry, that a local curiosity, when you drill deeper has global significance. Mike has produced a lot of useful work on the watermills, and in future I see each being spun off as a separate article, but at the moment keeping them with their rivers is the correct thing to do. Take a look at the guideline for River Articles. The policy you quoted may or may not be relevant when an article reaches FA status, but that is in the future.ClemRutter (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is stub class – force-feeding it watermills does not not make it a substantial article, it only makes a stub with a fatty liver. Expanding the rest of the article would not help; it would still be unbalanced. It would be like including reams of batting scores in an article about cricket.
I can't see anything in the Rivers Project guidelines which requires giving full details of every mill. It says there should be a narrative of the flow (which in fact we don't really have), but such a narrative would do no more than mention those mills which are landmarks (or is that watermarks...?).
I have no problem with details of watermills being given somewhere – but the point here is that those details are already given in a much more suitable article. They cannot be repeated in full detail in both.
Incidentally, it can't be right that every mill ought to have a full article, any more than every house in Kent ought to – that would be against WP:NOTABILITY. Only notable mills deserve their own article; others belong (if anywhere) in more general articles. Some (though not me) might say that the Teise itself is barely notable. The existence of loads of detailed published information does not mean we have to include it all uncritically. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that wind and watermills have the same notability status as ships (all notable+). Watermills don't just come under Wikiproject Rivers, there's Wikiproject Architecture, Wikiproject Energy and Wikiproject Technology too. Also, if I can get enough interest, there will be Wikiproject Mills. I think the lack of a dedicated project is part of the problem, for if there was a dedicated project on Mills, then a published set of guidelines can be agreed for watermills, and how they are covered.
+That doesn't necessarily mean that every windmill has to have its own article. If all that is known about a windmill is that it was marked on a map in a certain year, then that fact being mentioned in the article on the locality would be sufficient. (Unsigned comment by User:Mjroots, 17:26, 26 April 2008)
Again there has been removal of content without discussion or consensus being reached. I've reinstated the removed material. The article on the river itself, and other aspects apart from the watermills need to be expanded. My area of expertise lies with the mills, and I'll expand these as and when I can find more verifiable facts. The four articles on the Medway watermills deal solely with the watermills. The duplication of content is not unnecessary in my opinion as the two articles have different agendas. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is completely unnecessary if an article is so apparently violating the manual of style. The linked section asks for boldly deleting duplicated content. Please take a look at the Wikipedia world outside your River Teise bubble! --Dschwen15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: remove all the mills into an article of their own, or delete them altogether. This is really a stub article about a river, but it is bulked out by repetitive and non-notable material. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Town Bridge. This article is about the Teise, and bridges over the Beult belong in that article unless they have some particular importance for the Teise – and if there is such a connection, it needs to be explained. Water from the Teise flowing under a bridge isn't enough, or we'd have to describe the entire later journey of the water – under Rochester bridge, out past Sheerness and perhaps washing up and down the North Sea...
Twyford Bridge and the fords. I can understand that the bridge may well have replaced various fords. However, as stated it is either wrong or confusing. How does a bridge over the Medway replace a ford over the Beult? If the bridge somehow bypassed the Beult, that needs to be explained by more than a bald statement that it did. --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this map. The small river at left heading north is one of the branches of the Teise. The large river heading northeast is the Medway. They both meet at Twyford bridge, hence Twyford = Twin Fords. The large river on the right is the Beult, which has by now received the waters from the other stream of the Teise, and flows under the Town Bridge, joining the Medway downstream of Twyford Bridge. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, as the editor who wrote the original description, I comfortable with people cleaning up my prose, but there is usually a reason why I include an obscure fact in the first place. I looked at the map, then the 1:25000 map and then the material provided by the Medway River Project which is to a larger scale and finally made a site visit when I photographed the area for Commons. The terms I used in the description were the terms used by the River Project. On the ground, it is important to understand the location to Town Bridge as this is a reliable named point on the larger scale maps, and used in conversation by the residents. Twyford bridge has to be distinguished from Twyford Marina which is on a different river. Perhaps, you could clean up my English, and rewrite the facts in a way that is acceptable to you.ClemRutter (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twyford. I'm still a bit confused about the two fords. I looked on the larger 1:25,000 OS map: go to http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/ (an immensely useful site), and search on TQ689496 (no spaces). Twyford Bridge seems to cross the Medway a bit below the minor Teise. There may have been twy fords originally, but surely the bridge only replaces the Medway one? It bypasses the Teise ford, but does not replace it. Or was the course of the Teise different previously?
At least we agree about being confused! Look at commons:category:Yalding and you will see many of my photos. This shows the confluence from the Twyford bridge, there are others of the bridge in the category. I haven't researched this further, but I believe that it was the Medway that changed it course when it was turned into a navigation, and the Hampstead Lane Cut was made and the sluice was added to raise the river above this point. I know this is weak- but look at
Town Bridge. I have no problem with mentioning it if necessary, but I'm still not clear how it helps. Why not just say "Marden"? It took me several readings and a look at the map to understand it wasn't on the Teise. It may be familiar to residents, but they know where it is already and our readers don't necessarily. I too have no trouble with including obscure facts – but there has to be a reason which is obvious to the reader. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the 1872 OS 1:10,560 (six-inch) map, on the excellent http://www.old-maps.co.uk (search on coordinates 568800 and 149600, then click on the Enlarge Map tab on right edge of map – you get a new window with the map at a good big scale). This quite clearly shows the minor Teise and Medway forming a pool just above Twyford bridge, as might be expected if it was the site of a wide ford. In fact, having seen the layout on the larger-scale old map, the modern 1:25,000 does also show the same course – it's just a bit confused by the smaller scale and other nearby water features (you do get a somewhat better map from the modern OS site if you click on Print/Save/Copy). I therefore agree that it's legitimate to say the bridge replaced the two fords, and I've amended the para accordingly, and tried to clarify the rest of it too. Sorry for excessive scepticism... --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
