This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
UK Waterways 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.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
The contents of the Tamesis page were merged into River Thames on 14 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
On 24 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be
Have you rembered to note the speciality of the sand in the mouths of the Thames? Murray Fairview (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious what you are saying here. Care to explain more? thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology - Brittonic origin
A recent edit in River Thames#Brittonic origin split 'tamesis' and stated that the Oxford River name came from '...esis'. This is plausible but it needs verification with a reference. The trouble with plausible statements is they are believed even if false (and the false belief hangs around long after they're refuted) so a [citation needed] tag is not sufficient. Rather than delete it out of hand, I have commented out the edit so that it can be reinstated if a reference is found. OrewaTel (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 24 January 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved.Favonian (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No After reading arguments here, I asked some friends. They universally said 'River Thames'. One also commented that 'Thames' without 'River' referred to the Coromandel town, Thames. I've changed my mind. OrewaTel (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OrewaTel: "Thames" already redirects to River Thames, so the Coromandel town is irrelevant. Mast303 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sources using just "Thames" are abundant enough to call this the
Thames" already redirects here, so that is a non-issue. BD2412T 06:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support per nom and NATURAL.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Britain's national mapping agency have always referred to it as River Thames - why differ? As for consistency, irrespective of what may have been done with Danube etc, it would be inconsistent with other British river articles. Geopersona (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: In the case of Mississippi River, the "river" part is used purely for disambiguation, since Mississippi is the name of a state, and the state is the primary topic. Mast303 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, in the US rivers generally have the name "River" as a suffix even if primary, see
Oppose River is opart of the name, note it is the River Thames, not the Thames river. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
WP:COMMONNAME. And to the nominator's point, there are lots of river article titles that have "River" in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose - I suspect part of this is a geographical thing, it tends to be just "the Thames" for people in London following a general trend for any river to not need the "River" bit locally, whereas further away it is more likely to include "River". And yes, that "local", without "river" format applies at a global level on Wikipedia to the very biggest, continental-scale rivers but even eg the Brahmaputra River and the Mackenzie River get "river" when they dwarf any river in the UK. Also looking more locally, the biggest UK watersheds like River Severn, River Trent and River Great Ouse get "river". Finally, it helps USians who without more direction tend to call it the Thames River... FlagSteward (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2023 (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.
Units
The Thames has been described as being 215 miles long. This is equivalent to 346 km. The lead paragraph contains the text {{convert|215|mi|adj=off}}. Recently this was changed to {{convert|346|km|adj=off}}. In principle this correct. We should prefer SI units over parochial units. The trouble is that all the sources, such as they are, give the length as 215 miles. Should we stay with the sources? OrewaTel (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case we should use miles for this particular article. From MOS:UNIT:-
"In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
...
the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);" Ttocserp 21:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which leads to the inconsistency that just about every other measurement used in the article is expressed in metric terms. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 26 measurements in imperial units and 13 SI in the article itself. A number of the SI units come directly from scientific reports such as "Sediment cores up to 10 m deep ..." The infobox contains 11 items using SI units which is the river infobox standard. OrewaTel (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Untied Kingdom. Inconsistency using metric and imperial units is normal for this country, and it is not Wikipedia's job to impose standardisation where none exists in the real world. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
