Talk:West Beck

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal West Beck is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:West Beck (River Hull).

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the articles The joy of all things (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge these two articles as they are the same stream, just listed under different names. Driffield Beck even has a wikilink on it that says its also known as West Beck and then links directly to this article. I imagine that there will not be too much in the way of objections, but just in case I am making a complete fool of myself, I have listed it here for votes for and against. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given above. The joy of all things (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The upper reaches of the River Hull have significant drainage modifications, and I would encourage replacing stubs with appropriate section-focused redirects to a comprehensive article of reasonable length explaining both the timing of changes and the present flow sequence. A map would be a most useful addition to this combined article, but a simplified chart might be assembled from the icons created for railways. See Santa Rosa Creek or Russian River (California) for examples. Thewellman (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the response; West Beck article does have route map based on a railway pictogram layout. Or are you saying it is not good enough? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! That's just what I had in mind. (Sorry, I missed it because hidden mode was a bit too effective.) Map would still be useful. Thewellman (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a pushpin map, hoping that helps...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The course section could do with expanding to explain where the name changes take place. Keith D (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Support There only needs to be one article for this stream...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the edits and the vote. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catchment Area

I've updated the catchment/basin area to 234.3 sq.km as it was a bit low - all of the trib areas from Catchment Data Explorer have to be added together. This fits closer with the area to the gauging point of 242.2 sq.km, which should be less or equal to the total (maybe they used different methods to measure the area...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]