![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"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
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
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)
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)
"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.
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)
There's some nice pics in this article. BalfourCentre 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Thanks! Sbrools ( talk . contribs) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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'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)
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)
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:
What do you guys think? - User:Atanamir ( 134.134.137.73 ( talk) 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
Good suggestion. I'll follow that up a little later. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The following wording is a draft of what I have in mind. Two things need to be noted:
Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:41, 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:
Any other suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions about how to refine the wording to prevent this misreading? Michael Glass ( talk) 04:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Michael Glass ( talk) 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it referred to as the River Thames and not the Thames River? Cousert ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
See [5] for marshes and elevations. Adam37 ( talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
sharks were found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:35CF:4100:AC4B:AFD4:9328:AE79 ( talk) 10:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"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
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
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)
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)
"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.
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)
There's some nice pics in this article. BalfourCentre 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Thanks! Sbrools ( talk . contribs) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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'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)
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)
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:
What do you guys think? - User:Atanamir ( 134.134.137.73 ( talk) 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
Good suggestion. I'll follow that up a little later. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The following wording is a draft of what I have in mind. Two things need to be noted:
Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:41, 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:
Any other suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions about how to refine the wording to prevent this misreading? Michael Glass ( talk) 04:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Michael Glass ( talk) 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it referred to as the River Thames and not the Thames River? Cousert ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
See [5] for marshes and elevations. Adam37 ( talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
sharks were found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:35CF:4100:AC4B:AFD4:9328:AE79 ( talk) 10:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)