Talk:River Mole

The Infobox at the top of the article on the right hand side can be found at Template:River Mole, Surrey. Mertbiol (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "CAMs" :
 * Mole CAMs Cover.qxd
 * At the confluence of the Mole and the River Thames it is possible to catch brown trout and flounder. http://www.environmentagency.net/commondata/acrobat/river__tidal__562842.pdf

Proposed Move to River Mole
Move Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

River Mole is a disambig page for River Mole, Devon and River Mole, Surrey. The Surrey river is longer and more well known and a simple hatnote on the Surrey page linking to the Devon page should be in order. The proposed move would be in line with the convention adopted for River Wey (see also Talk:River Wey. Mertbiol (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it! - but don't forget the redirects. Regards Motmit (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, pending more information. River Mole, a disambiguation page, has 29 incoming links that need to be changed so they link to the correct article. See Disambiguation pages with links. If either article is moved to this page name, future disambiguation of incoming links will be much more difficult. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Una. All of the 29 incoming links to the River Mole page (other than talk page links) refer to the Surrey River. (If you follow any of the links they will take you to articles about locations in Surrey, Sussex or South London.)  This surely reinforces the argument that the page should be moved. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the motivation for this requested move is to save the bother of disambiguating a handful of incoming links to a dab page?


 * Hi. Quoting from WP:D "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." Clearly the Surrey river is the primary topic in this case. Mertbiol (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per what others have told me when I have requested moves, as requester of a move the burden is on you to show (not merely assert) that the river in Surrey is the primary topic. Can you do that? --Una Smith (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting assertion, where exactly did you hear that, Una? I haven't seen you do showing when you want to move in the OTHER direction, do you often do that sort of showing, or do you tend to move first and then deal with the folk pointing out it wasn't a good idea? ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [Hi Una. [River Mole]] was viewed 478 times in November 2008, River Mole, Surrey 1642 times and River Mole, Devon 179 times. A google search for "River Mole" brings up River Mole first then River Mole, Surrey. Eight of the remaining top ten articles found by google refer to the Surrey River and none to the Devon River.  A comparison of the 'what links here' pages is difficult, because the Devon River is included in a template and therefore is linked to by every river in Devon with a wiki page.  Geographically the Surrey river passes through a more heavily populated region and is longer.  I think all this shows that the Surrey river is the primary topic. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mert - an edit conflict with you stopped my making almost identical observations. QED I'd say. Regards Motmit (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Surrey has 2 links to other wikis, Devon none Motmit (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... Motmit has shown that this is the primary usage by a wide margin and a hatnote will suffice. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
The point about disambiguating incoming links to pages is that it is easiest if the ambiguous base name (here River Mole) is a disambiguation page, because most or all links to the page will be incorrect links. So you can fix them and be done. If you move an article to the ambiguous base name, then before you can fix any new incorrect links, you have to find them among the correct links. And new links come as Wikipedia grows, so each time you want to fix links you again have to find them among the correct links. The more correct links an article has, the harder it is to find the incorrect links. --Una Smith (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So your assertion is that in cases where most links are incorrect, we should move the DAB page to the primary topic to fix the incorrect links, (rather than fixing the links) but in other cases, where most links are CORRECT, we should leave things be because it makes it harder to find incorrect ones? Or have I misconstrued the sense of your argument? I find that conflicting argument rather, well, conflicting. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be collegial to put a notice of this requested move on Talk:River Mole, Devon? --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the article
User:Mertbiol has asked me to look at this article with a view to getting it to GA. On a quick scan I think it is looking good but a few suggestions for improvement: I would suggest asking for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers & considering some of the guidelines at Rivers. Hope this is helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 14:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Images could do with alt= as described at WP:ALT (although this is not a requirement for GA)
 * The bulleted list in Mole Gap under Geology could be turned into prose
 * The direct quotes in Geology could be paraphrased & use the same references
 * There are large chunks of blockquote in literature which I personally don't find that useful - but I guess that is personal preference.
 * There are some statements lacking references, particularly in "Crossing" Lower Mole.
 * References 8,9,11 15&16 (reuse ref), 17,19,25,41,44,45 & 50 need more info including title, author (if given) & accessdate.

You might also want to look at Checklinks: River Mole which shows some broken links, Dablinks: River Mole which shows lots of Dabs & Peer Review River Mole which shows other issues which might need fixing.&mdash; Rod talk 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article looks OK apart from excessive WP:Overlinking, for instance not only does Crawley appear to be linked in every paragraph, it also appears to be linked in every sentence. It is linked seven times in the Course section, alone. This also applies to Gatwick airport and loads of other words. I would would fail it for non compliance with WP:MOS. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Leith Hill is 965 feet (294 metres) above OD. The stream that joins the Mole a little upstream of Sidlow Bridge, Earlswood Brook, drains a small area of land, mainly southern Earlswood; it also takes water from the Earlswood STW. Redhill and points north and east are drained by what become Redhill Brook, also known as Guerney's Brook. This swings to the east on leaving northern Earlswood, and then flows south in pipes under Redhill Aerodrome before swinging west, now as Sal Brook, and joining the Mole a little downstream of Kinnersley Manor. Reigate is drained by what becomes Shag Brook, which joins the Mole at Flanchford Bridge. Joseph B. Fox (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)