Jump to content

Talk:River Wye

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Can anyone find anything on the origin of the name "Wye"? There are other Welsh rivers ending in -wy, such as the Conwy, Banwy and Vyrnwy. ML 24.11.06.

This page states that the River Wye is the sixth longest river in the UK but Rivers of Great Britain that the link goes to states it is the fifth longest; anyone know which is correct? - Carlwev 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of the United Kingdom has recently been updated to remove River Aire from 4th position. I have updated the Wye to reflect this. External verification would be good. Finavon 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggested new structure for article

[edit]

This article has the potential to be quite large. As a way of organising the material for a more detailed study of the river, I suggest dividing it into 3 sections as upper Wye; middle Wye; and lower Wye. Suggested divisions as from the source to perhaps Newbridge (or Rhayader or the confluence of the Elan) for upper Wye. Down to perhaps Hay on Wye or possible Hereford for middle Wye. Hay or Hereford to Chepstow (nearest town to the estuary) for lower Wye. My divisions are arbitrary but reasonably practical. There may be geological reasons for other divisions. The tributaries can be listed from source to estuary - does Wiki allow us to organise this semi-graphically for Welsh and English sides? Links to other articles may usefully be organised by flow down the river where these links do not come in the main body of text. Basically, there is too much material to produce a comprehensive article in one single article. As of October 2009, most of it is lower Wye. I'm trying to suggest an organisation which will allow us to add to the article and build it logically. Otherwise there may be a need for a time-consuming re-write later on. I have a little material to add on a middle Wye section. Most importantly, we need Welsh speakers to give us authentic Welsh place names etc. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs improving, but guidance on the structure of articles on rivers exists at WP:RIVER#Article structure guidelines. I strongly suggest that we should follow that guidance, unless you can suggest very good arguments not to do so. Clearly there are differences between the upper and lower stretches, as to how the river is used and so forth, but there are also aspects of the river which it seems best to approach as a whole. In my view, splitting it on geographical lines would lead to a fragmented article. If there is too much material, it might eventually be necessary to split it on a topic basis, although we are a long way away from that scenario, and so far it hasn't proved necessary to split up articles on the Amazon, Nile, or Thames, to give a few examples. There are Welsh speakers here who can help on placenames, but it is easy enough to find Welsh placenames by using a site like this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ENGLISH WALES BORDER

[edit]

SOME PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE THAT MONMOUTHSHIRE IS PART OF ENGLAND! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon543 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are wrong. That's why we write educational articles like this. And please don't SHOUT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whos wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.111 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin name

[edit]

It's true that "Vaga" is a Latin name for the Wye, but I don't think there's any evidence that it was a Roman name: it's either medieval or Renaissance, and it would be good to have a source telling us how old it really is. As for the etymology of this Latin name, that needs a modern citation too: what's currently said in the article sounds like pre-20th century speculation which wouldn't be taken seriously now.

A probable origin would be from the Old Welsh name which was apparently Waeg [no, this is Anglo-Saxon, see below], thence to Vaga in Latin sources either from Anglo-Saxon or medieval Welsh contexts. But that's only a guess -- that's why we need citations. Andrew Dalby 09:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izaak Walton, in his The Compleat Angler tell us that "Vaga" is the Latin name, but little more. He certainly doesn't mention any Romans. But he does mention the other Wye that he knew of, but not the third one. I wonder how and why those other two were so named? (I see that High Wycombe, named after its river, had a Roman Villa (built 150–170 AD), but that may be purely coincidental). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This antiquarian source derives it from an Anglo-Saxon word waeg, cognate with the French vague. I have no idea of its reliability - probably not high. The etymology section certainly needs to be rewritten - I suggest that our Latin expert has a go, drawing on whatever sources are available but making clear the uncertainty! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. Thanks for that link to Bosworth's AS dictionary. He was a serious guy. My OS "Britain in the Dark Ages" map seemed to tell me Waeg was Old Welsh, but I probably misinterpreted it. [Yes, quite obviously I did, because the name of the river in Nennius is Guoy, which must be his version of the Welsh name in his time: which is close to the modern Gwy and not at all close to Waeg.] Andrew Dalby 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bosworth simply quotes an even earlier scholar, Edward Lye, who wrote in the middle of the 18th Century. This alleged Welsh word gwybiol isn't in my Geiriadur Newydd nor any other source I can find online and gwyr as far as I know means "men" not any kind of hill. This small section needs some sorting out: as in certain other cases it's just the fond imaginings of dilettante clergymen in an era before anyone could do proper linguistics. Paul S (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

two designations

[edit]
The Wye itself is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. There are two distinct designations being River Wye (Upper Wye) or Afon Gwy (Gwy Uchaf) and River Wye (Lower Wye) or Afon Gwy (Gwy Isaf) SDdGA.

Could this sentence be made less jargonotic? What's a "designation" in this context? Is it one Site or two Sites?

It has two references:

  • "Countryside Council for Wales Landscape & wildlife statement for River Wye (Upper Wye) / Afon Gwy (Gwy Uchaf)". Countryside Council for Wales. Retrieved 2012-08-18.
  • "Natural England SSSI information on River Wye (Lower Wye) or Afon Gwy (Gwy Isaf) SDdGA - citation, maps and unit details". Natural England. Retrieved 2012-08-18.

The first link is dead, and redirects to a cover page that does not mention the Wye at all. The second is about the Wye SSSI as a whole, though it does link to a PDF which mentions the lower/upper division. A quick websearch sheds no light on "SDdGA".

For the River Wye (Lower Wye) there are seven units of assessment set by Natural England, and the citation involves the county authorities of Hereford and Worcester, Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire and Powys.

The second link above mentions the seven units, but they are for the whole Wye SSSI. —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that section was written by someone (User:Sjeans), who knew what they were talking about without much regard for whether anyone else would understand it. I'll have a go at interpreting and rewriting it. SDdGA is the acronym for SSSI in Welsh, but there's no real reason for it to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've greatly improved it! —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...ongoing.... ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that a new article could be written for the River Wye concentrating on it as an SSSI which is then linked through to this article - there is perhaps insufficient coverage of these environmental aspects in comparison with other UK SSSI project articles? Alternatively this article could be expanded. However, in the interim, the citation/designation information as published by English Nature (as one of the two main regulatory bodies responsible for the Wye) does provide information written in a particular form. Unfortunately it would seem that the newly formed regulatory body for Wales web site does not carry the information on the Wye which was available previously (yet?).

Perhaps also the Wikipedia article which explains Sites_of_Special_Scientific_Interest and is linked in all articles might need a revisit as agree this is a complex issue if unfamiliar with the UK system for protected sites? That article has notes attached to it currently.

When I spent several months of my time about a year ago completing the good work of others started in 2006 on the List_of_SSSIs_in_Gloucestershire and ensuring an article existed for each of them, I found that some stubs set up had become 'diverted' for other purposes and this appears to cause some 'tensions' for articles on rivers, canals, locations and hills (balance of content of article etc and policy requirements of the individual projects).

I'm afraid I have no time currently to work on SSSI aspects - would have liked to work on those in adjacent counties to Gloucestershire. See List_of_SSSIs_by_Area_of_Search. Many thanks to all those across the UK who are continuing with this work. My best wishes to you all. Sjeans (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say also that the link to the Upper Wye SSSI info. appears to remain active and is not dead (see statement above). The Countryside Council for Wales web site remains active for the time being until the new arrangements are fully implemented. Perhaps try both the link above and the citation in the references in the article? Perhaps there has been some diversion problems for both sites which have now been fixed. With best regards Sjeans (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Wye. 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.

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).

  • 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) 00:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length of river

[edit]

The stated length of 134 miles is referenced in the 'description' section but a look at the Wye and Usk Foundation's website suggests about 152 miles, at considerable variance from that figure. And the figure here and in the infobox differ slightly in the metric values. This sort of discrepancy is no stranger to articles on rivers, mind you. thanks Geopersona (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This says 250 km (155 mi), but the book Wye by Richard Hayman says 215 km (135 mi), and Wye Valley by George Peterken says 'some 225 km' (140 mi). That doesn't answer your question, but demonstrates that it does need an answer. Further research needed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may take the wider issue for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers (where surprisingly I cannot see that there has been a discussion previously as regards uncertainties around river lengths)cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Longest rivers of the United Kingdom seems to attempt some consistency in approach, discusses definitions, and uses the same source - this book - for its information on the major rivers. It shows the Wye as 215 km (134 mi). Should this article not use the same figure, and the same source - with, perhaps, a discussion in the text of the inconsistencies (with some explanation, if we can find it) ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is to be desired. Accuracy too. I have just measured its length using the function on the 'wheresthepath' website and arrived at a figure of 250.5km / 155.8 miles from the named source to a point level with Beachley Point where it enters the Severn estuary. It is a further mile long the national boundary to that boundary's junction with the Gloucs/Bristol boundary, for what it is worth. I am fairly confident of that figure given the exacting way in which I plotted it (at max zoom against the 10k-based map style upstream of Hay on Wye and against 1:50K mapping from that point downwards); it is of course original research so cannot be used in wikipedia, except insofar as it gives me confidence that the NRW figure is a whole lot more dependable than the other ones. We rarely if ever get detail behind quoted figures for lengths - how and when they were arrived at - are they simply quoting earlier sources? - and, relevant in cases like the Wye, where the river is considered to end. cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed the length to fit the SSSI citation now since this should be more authoritative (and indeed is certainly more correct having independently checked the length by two different methods now, both giving figures in the range 250-252km). A large number of websites - not just wiki mirror sites - have been using this previous woefully inaccurate figures - couldn't let that continue! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 floods - 'recentism'

[edit]

It's a common thing but recent flooding is often given more prominent coverage than earlier flooding, not least because accessible media coverage is more readily available. I've removed the term flash-flooding since on large rivers like the Wye, though the rise in levels may be rapid, it does not equate with the classical flash-floods seen in for example an American canyon. Geopersona (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident along the Wye, I'd like to opine that it's always flooded, and there have always been better and worse years for it. There is in my view nothing particularly noteworthy about 2020/2021. Thank you. 146.200.4.89 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:River_Wye&oldid=1218484751"