Talk:Jubilee River

UK geography Low‑importance

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

Buckinghamshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Name[edit]

Any particular reason why this is the Jubilee River and not the River Jubilee? All other UK rivers follow the latter pattern. If there is a reason, perhaps it should be in the article... Grutness...wha? 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because "Jubilee" is more of an adjective or descriptor rather than the actual name, e.g. it is named after the Queen's jubilee. There are other rivers in the UK that follow this word order, e.g. New River. 143.252.80.110

Verifiablity[edit]

There seems to be a challenge. An editor has asserted that additions made without citations are correct because he, the editor, is the reliable source. We need to remember that, while one may know something, for it to be a valid addition to a Wikipedia article, that knowledge must be capable of verification in a reliable source. An editor's brain is not such a source. Additions to an article in this manner are original research by our definitons

That editor is resisting requests for citations, extending that to certainly my own talk page, and reverting addition of relevant tags such as {{refimprove}}. We need to ensure that this is handled with polite firmness, and either have citations added or, unfortunately, remove unverifiable items from the article Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think we should work together to try and provide some confidence in what is an important article. Quite a few references could be found I am sure - I stuck one in as a start. I know two earlier valid refs went awol and the EA changed their website which didn't help either. We may have problems with the intimate technical details but most of it should be verifiable. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added material from the Japan Times article [1] and removed some material that I could not find a citation for. The Environmental Agency's links no longer work. Info I found was all metric so I added conversions into Imperial but put the metric figures first. Michael Glass (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any 'offbrooks' that feed into (or off) the Jubilee river?[edit]

Don't know how it all works or even if it's possible but just wondered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:490:A600:98ED:876D:9F60:A38B (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Construction[edit]

There is the following sentence in the 4th paragraph of this section "The channel saw flows well short of its designed maximum flow capacity, and some INTENDED[clarification needed] weir damage, bed and bank erosion occurred." (My caps)

I strongly suspect that the word should have been 'unintended'. The Environment Agency certainly spent skads of money preventing the eroded bank from collapsing. However the inline citation refers to an extremely strident article. That article (which by the way mentions the heroic efforts of EA to rescue the bank) has the following, "THE CONCLUSION ... CAN ONLY BE THAT MISMANAGEMENT AND MISOPERATION ... BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY" It is possible that the authors of that article believe that the word 'intended' is correct.

I recommend that the word 'intended' be corrected to 'unintended' but because that would reverse the meaning of that sentence, I will wait a month or so for comments before making that edit. OrewaTel (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No map?[edit]

A map would be really helpful... Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]