Talk:Rowing on the River Thames

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rowing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing 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.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles To-do list: edit history watch purge Featured Articles: Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status. Get article relisted to 'good article status' Put through another round of peer review, see here Nominate for featured status Ditto for Henley Royal Regatta, The Boat Race , Steve Redgrave Stubs: see here.. Tag {{Rowing-stub}} onto all rowing stub articles so we can keep track of them. Expand stubs to at least start class. Image requests: see here.. Article requests: see here.. Write bios for World Rowing champions (see the redlinks in the templates) Document FISA database errors inactive .River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

There is a full list of clubs is on the Thames Regional Rowing Council website. I don't think that every club can be listed on this page. The list could be made into a new separate page with lists of clubs. There are so many clubs in this region of the country. According to the wiki page on the River Thames "There are over 200 clubs on the river, and over 8,000 members of the Amateur Rowing Association (over 40% of its membership)". At the moment it looks ok, but it could well get out of hand. There is a group of users on wikipedia who are against unnecessary lists in articles, to an extent they have a point.

The page List of rowing blades has the rule that clubs can only be listed if they have a wiki page. I think that we need to define a criteria for including a clubs in the list.

Suggestions:

• clubs have a wiki page
• clubs are host clubs, ie have their own dedicated boat house (there are many clubs who boat out of other boat houses)
• clubs have a blade design on wikipedia (I wont make all of them, at least not now)
• Clubs are notable, have produced famous/successful athletes/results

Obviously there may be people from clubs who want their club to be included on the list so a defined criteria should be made known. if the first suggestion above is used then is someone does want their club included they must make a page about the club.

Jono Watkins (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid you might throw your hands up when I extended the list. The list in the article so far is mainly based on results in the Rowing Almanack - so that probably excludes many smaller ones automatically. Is demonstrable success there a reasonable criterion? However some of the Tideway ones are copied from an empty list in the Champs course article and perhaps they are not so notable. Having a boat house is probably a good measure, although presumably some clubs that boat out of other clubs (probably schools) also need to be included (Hampton used to boat out of Molesey). Organising a regatta is probably also a good indicator. Many of the clubs that do not have their own page yet are mentioned on other pages - either as a red or black link - and so may come in due course. I have deliberately not red-linked any in this article to prevent willy-nilly creation, so the presence of a blade could be a good indicator of value. Article/blade design is a bit C&E and I found blades without articles and vice versa to start with. Advertising the blade is very useful both at events and day to day - (we can identify the boat on Sunbury Lock). I have been waiting for a response before adding about half a dozen schools- Radley, Pangbourne - e.g. Does that help? Motmit (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have and will be continuing to make the Oxford Uni college blades, they are at User:Jonowatkins/Rowing Blades/University Colleges. I don't know for certain how correct they are, they are researched from the club websites' photographs, and I'm not totally familiar with them. Whether all colleges should be included on this page or not is continuing the discussion above. Maybe another new page which is simple a list of rowing clubs should be made? Jono Watkins (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I set this up I thought it would be useful to have all the Thames events and clubs in one place (my interest being more from the Thames angle than the rowing angle - and I am working on the lock reaches). At the moment there does not appear to be a loading problem and lots of articles are much longer. Having the blades adds a bit of colour so I hope we can keep it all together. Perhaps we just need to keep an eye on it if more club/college articles are written and need to be linked. Motmit (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is correct to say "Many of the long distance events on the Tideway are raced over The Championship Course and apart from the Boat Race and Wingfield Sculls may begin from Mortlake or Putney depending on river conditions". For example, the direction of the Head of the River Race is always Down, never Up. Zin92 (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's more about the history of rowing races on the river, but I didn't see a good place to integrate this at this point: Rowing races on the river have been documented as early as 1725, and the Thames was the venue for the 1908 London Olympics rowing races. (Hammer, Joshua (July 2012). "300 Years of Rowing on the Thames". Smithsonian.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor

To editor

WP:ORG by your subjective and dare I say it totally undemocratic redactions. Your edit is the sort of dictatorial monopoly in terms of its selectivity that is anti-competitive and very demeaning to any race you deem smaller. You need to now instead be kind and generous to all races which attract large entries of racers each year and not be quite so tramlined into thinking that your edit in any way involves a "list article" or an article of a narrow scope and participation. Also given your date of copyediting I assume you have a friend who does that element for you and you are both in close contact going forwards whcih is taking over other people's fair and democratic lists, entries and information and giving them your special joint select committee approach. How very Orwellian. I think you both need to step back from the article and give people and clubs the respect they derserve.- Adam37 Talk 17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite a lot of accusations from you; Please report me to

races which are already discussed in a standalone article because sources might exist there. It is not Wikipedia's concern if smaller races are unknown because we do not advertise them here. Please restore my content removals until you can find sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I do think including entries that don't have an article should be...well, considered not ideal. At the absolute minimum we need to prove these actually exist outside of their own web pages. If someone somewhere isn't talking about them, we shouldn't be including them here. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam37, over 40% of this article was written by you; you've been editing it since 2014. And it's completely unsourced except for a mention of an affiliated publication which was added in 2007. I believe this is a notable subject, but you couldn't prove it by this article. All this time you've been adding to and polishing this article, you could have been adding sources, and you haven't added a single one. I don't think you're just making stuff up. I feel like you're doing a lot of research and this article isn't showing any of it. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could either of you actually help rather than destroy and assume non-notability? The Hills Hoists would hoist you both from their goalposts one way or another if you behaved like that on their page. Please do not be so easily offended, see the relative picture and help rather than assume other people are writing to boost their own interests. Of course I'm not.-

WP:N clearly shows you don't need an own article to mention anything annual happening, that's daft.- Adam37 Talk 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC) P.P.S. 40%? No, that's counting graphics and tabulation which is neatness and even more rude and over-stressing my work. Try looking more deeply beyond what is right in front, it's easier to mislead than it is to be kind.- Adam37 Talk 20:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't actually have any knowledge of the subject. Not sure what a Hill Hoist is...google tells me Hills Hoist is a clothesline, but that can't be it.

I know it's difficult, Adam, and I'm sorry. But I was shocked that an article that had been fairly regularly edited for years by multiple editors had zero inline sources, multiple redlinked entries in tables. It's just a bit dismaying. Valereee (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sources: we want

WP:independent

of the subject.

Re: boosting your own interests: I'm sure you aren't. I assume rowing is a subject you're deeply interested in and have spent a lot of time on here, with good intentions. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Xtools says. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, just a word on this: Your edit ends up advertising certain races which will attract therefore MORE ENTRIES so more money for that club. Wikipedia definitely isn't trying to level the playing field for small clubs that haven't gotten enough recognition yet. That would fall under

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable independent sources say about a subject. It doesn't matter whether the subject needs the coverage, or would benefit from it. If no one else is talking about it, we don't either. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As if that would be in line with social media coverage; no each race is all across twitter and many other platforms. Also other sports generally don't follow your article-only cut-off so why are you so anti-rowing. Your argument is strong but is clearly a losing one and based on a misunderstanding rather than actually disliking rowing it is about not supporting one sport that doesn't have media commentators covering it so much any more.- Adam37 Talk 17:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a refreshing constructive thought (yes some of your citations have been constructive thank you) please can anyone think of an ideal independent, reliable source for the slightly more minor annual races that still attract local media coverage (which most do) and certainly which attract a wide field of competitors stretching usually from Yorkshire and Lancashire (sometimes Tyne Tees) down to Christchurch and Medway, which again most of these races do. Again we are talking a lot more competitors than many minor football leagues annual cups which yes I know due to more teaching of it in schools gets far more publicity on UK sports in wikipedia. Some sports are more self-organised but don't let that drag it down.- Adam37 Talk 17:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valeree has already explained this issue of your

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument. I'm not saying these races don't exist. I'm insisting that we have sources as policy requires. I don't take a position upon what the popular media covers. We could agree that modern outlets ignore stuff like boating, the opera, and other classical pursuits to our detriment. However, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and we rely upon published sources to support the content here. We are not a free and open alternative to the news. We are not our own magazine publication for niche interests and perhaps you misunderstood that when you started editing here years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am a little surprised that someone with over 25K edits and fifteen years' experience doesn't understand that this has absolutely zero to do with my opinion on rowing as a sport. FTR, I don't dislike rowing. I have zero opinion on it, which is my basic opinion for almost all sports. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then rather than draw some classist comparison with opera, which is weird, and stating "classical pursuit" which denies the evolution mainstream rowing is still undergoing (and has already made big changes in) you could acknowledge the sources are fluid and liable to be struck down just as they are to be over-promoted. I think it is a lack of UK sports article experience i.e. those which are not in the slimmed down national press which we both show. My analogies with certain very low-league rugby and football clubs are helpful as their portal creation defend

WP:N strongly that far from every topic/club/race needs its own article, that is like saying every entry to a Eurovision Song Contest needs its own article.- Adam37 Talk 18:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Adam, the point isn't that every club needs its own article. Most probably don't. The point is that if we're going to list non-notable clubs, at minimum we need an independent source proving they exist. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you don't have a cite here to show that Chertsey Regatta takes place on this river. However, the article about Chertsey Regatta does, so that citation could be copied and provided over here. The same should be true for the other notable races, which is why I didn't remove them although they're not cited. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate all the races that attract hundred of entries from far and wide, find the other clubs and schools nationwide vaunting them and cite them as you have clearly ASSUMED non-coverage. And then reflect that your destruction has just made it harder for many of those major events to be respected, all on the basis that they don't have their own and of course don't merit their own race article despite being a major annual part-closure and fixture of this likely unparallelled river in rowing. Forgive the apt analogies which I enjoy than citation-finding which I feel is indeed difficult as I don't have time. It is as if you want to say all of the obscure rugby league (or union) figures of a particular middlish club have a special place cast in stone for them on this project, but any major sports event attracting far more competitors and for all people along the towpath to enjoy is surely a parochial matter - how very uncollegiate and individualist, yes politically that is the triumph of he who shouts and not he who bothers to research and consider I cannot be expected to float this thing alone. But float it certainly does.- Adam37 Talk 19:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I'm starting to get a little concerned about your reasons for creating and editing these articles. You seem to believe that because they need or deserve "respect", we should cover them. You need to stop adding any content to Wikipedia that you can't find or don't want to find a reliable source for. If you don't enjoy finding citations, you need to stop adding content.

Where the heck are you getting this information if not from sources? Valereee (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left it for others to add citations but all this stuff was here and on track with other articles on the subject. You're basically coaxing me into work, it's wrong and it's not fair.2.24.209.57 (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. You cannot add content without a source. It is considered disruptive and it can get you blocked from editing articles. Valereee (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is too draconian. There was the handiest of known up-to-date sources it was later (i.e. just recently) discredited by you both. So retract such an accusation as it's not fair. I also would rather you reinstate the Biddulph calendar as a reliable open source as it is known by all experienced rowers in my country at least.- Adam37 Talk 16:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]