Talk:Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales

No criticisms contained in this page
A number of assertions are made in this page with limited or partial sources and with what appear to be value judgements. Will attempt to incorporate a 'criticisms' section. For now I am adding a 'POV' flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cme34 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what are the assertions that, in your view, appear to be value judgments of have limited or partial sources? Otherwise, your assertion cannot be verified.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Move to "History of water supply in England and Wales"
Think this page should be focused on the history of water supply to England and Wales. Virtually all of the content is focused on water supply before water was devolved to Wales in 2006 and then further in 2018. (the exceptions being my recent but limited additions)

Reservoirs in Wales should also move to "Water supply in Wales" which would cover all water supply in Wales since the devolution of water. Titus Gold (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No reply to this suggestion over two weeks ago, so will proceed based on Silence and consensus Titus Gold (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed this, sorry. You can use an RM to bring in more editors. On this one, I have some concerns:
 * Before February this article made no mention that it was about historical supply. It is clearly intended that it be about current supply;
 * It is not clear that the devolution of the policy area affects the article content significantly. The supply is the same. It just needs an update;
 * Reservoirs in Wales is about reservoirs, not water supply. I answered that one elsewhere, as did others. That would not be an appropriate move at all; and
 * Even if this is about the history of..., adding that to the title is less concise. Titles should be concise and the old one was more so, whilst being fully descriptive.
 * Is the intention to move this so that something else can fill the space? I'll put it back, based on the move to Reservoirs in Wales having been rejected (See Talk:Reservoirs of Wales). Suggest you start an RM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. The content was generally around 15 years out of date so more appropriate for history scope. Separation of English and Welsh water in 2013 actually fits nicely with the content of the page as a history background. After renaming this page, I then thought that there was a need for an English page, so I created Water supply and sanitation in England. There could easily be an equivalent one for Wales (or expanding the reservoir page). It doesn't really make sense to keep things together after 2013; there would have to essentially be two separate narratives on the same page from 2013. Titus Gold (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a problem with having separate articles for England and Wales is that there are significant water transfers from Wales into England. This is not the case between Scotland and England, so the England and Wales aspect here makes sense. regardless of where the devolved policy responsibility lies, you can't understand English water supply if you cut Wales out of the picture. So do you have Welsh reservoirs like Cwm Elan and Lake Vyrnwy in the English article? That seems odd. Also, where information is out of date, splitting the article is likely to just make it out of date in two places. I would suggest your new page be changed to a redirect to here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Water supply in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland crosses the soft border. So too in some countries on the European mainland and across the world. This also goes for electricity. I don't think that point holds any water since management is separate. (excuse the pun) The out of date info is to this page as a joint page on the current water supply in both countries, but as a history page it would not be out of date.
 * I have made a new up to date page for England, Water supply and sanitation in England and could easily do the same for Wales. It simply no longer makes sense to have an article with two separate narratives of water policy and management. Titus Gold (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales → History of water supply in England and Wales – Since 2013, management has become entirely separate as well as policy making on water supply so this page should be on the history up until this point. Water supply and sanitation in England and Water supply and sanitation in Wales should be the pages discussing current water supply. Titus Gold (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nom. is incorrect to say that management is entirely separate. There are reservations. See which states  The question is not just about management but also about the arrangement of supply, where significant transfers of water exist from Wales to England, as demonstrated by the map on the existing page. Per the discussion above, the nom. seeks to create new articles for Wales and England rather than updating this article. It is not clear how the issue of transfers would be handled in the proposed new arrangement, nor why this would be an improvement. Policy on water is currently a joint effort between Welsh and UK Governments, per the above link:  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Water policy in Wales is devolved as it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
 * Water is managed independently by Natural Resources Wales in Wales and Environment Agency in England since 2013.
 * "The Welsh Ministers have functions in relation to any undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales."
 * It's irrelevant that some water is supplied from across the border of the two countries as this also happens across the Irish border, USA-Mexico border and some European mainland countries. This is common but responsibility usually lies internally within the country/nation.
 * International water treaties are extremely common between countries because obviously rivers and lakes can straddle international borders.
 * Titus Gold (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As the nom., your support is assumed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - confining it in this way would significantly limit any content related to water transfers between England and Wales. Political decisions on responsibility for water matters has very little influence on the real world of providing water and dealing with waste. In addition to the well-known water transfers, sewage from Wales is discharged into the Rivers Severn, Wye and Dee which is then transported into England while some English sewage enters the Dee before flowing back into Wales. Political boundaries are rarely helpful in limiting Wikipedia articles like this. Reality is a much better guide. The National Rivers Authority recognised this in setting its operational boundaries on major river catchment despite the loud political voices in both Cardiff and Westminster.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

Potential overlap with new articles Water supply and sanitation in England and Water supply and sanitation in Wales
Water supply and sanitation in England and Water supply and sanitation in Wales have since been split off, where does this leave this article? This article is currently worded in line with the RM above. Are these new articles suitable? Is there overlap? This seems to be a quasi-split. It was mentioned in the nomination above but did not gain support although specifically on the title. A split proposal would've probably made more sense than a RM IMO.  Dank Jae  02:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Edited:  Dank  Jae  03:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think a split to this article is necessary with the existence of the England supply and Wales supply separate pages. This article shows the previous context for water supply in England and Wales. I also made it clear on the 25th of March that I had made Water supply and sanitation in England so it was only right to have an equivalent Water supply and sanitation in Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a case like this mentioned just this week at ANI. Per that discussion, this is a reverted split. I will redirect the new pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. As I said earlier, I don't necessarily think a split is needed but rather pages specifically for each which can fit alongside this page. Following the redirect, I will prompt a discussion in future for Wales and England only supply/management pages. Titus Gold (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Split proposed

 * Support - I propose that this article be split into Water supply and sanitation in England and Water supply and sanitation in Wales. Reasons for a split include the diverging history and increased devolution of powers over water the Welsh Government including additional powers devolved in 2018. Titus Gold (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is just relitigating the declined move above. Per the reservations already discussed above, see which states  The question is not just about management but also about the arrangement of supply, where significant transfers of water exist from Wales to England, as demonstrated by the map on the existing page. Policy on water remains a joint effort between Welsh and UK Governments, per the above link:  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a different proposal. Intergovernmental protocol agreement shows a significant degree of separate responsibility as discussed in the article. There are international borders which have similar agreements. Titus Gold (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is essentially the same proposal as your previous proposal was to move this page out of the way as a "history of..." page so that you could create the two split pages, exactly as you now propose here. You are merely re litigating a proposal that was rejected just two months ago. Nothing has changed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is no justification for such a split. Wikipedia has no obligation to follow the minutiae of political distinctions. Articles should reflect general users' expectations and to avoid them having to hunt through several very closely related articles to find the answers that they seek.  Velella  Velella Talk 12:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When people want to know about water supply in Wales or in England, they are unlikely to type "Water supply in England and Wales" for example. Responsibility in Wales has been with Natural Resources Wales since 2013 with significant devolution of water powers to Wales occurring in 2006, 2017 and 2018.
 * In my view, this seems to be the last article on Wikipedia that has not caught up with devolution and the splitting and divergence of responsibility. Titus Gold (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- It's seems clear that Wales has had significant powers over water since 2013. The two sub sections for England and Wales separately show a clear independence in management. ProfBlue12 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — ProfBlue12 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - This thread is mentioned in an incident under discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 14:05 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose - While there is divergence between England and Wales since this article was created they are not fully separate with many laws applying to both, both overseen by Ofwat, and campaigns by Welsh politicians for more powers implying they are still connected as the Welsh Government cannot control English companies using water from Wales. So leaning oppose for now unless comparable articles can be used in which the current devolution is comparable to two separate articles elsewhere. The proposer has been splitting other various "England and Wales" articles without discussion which would also need to be considered in this proposal. Note the rearrangement of this article into "England" and "Wales" since 2013 was done by the nominator if it gives the impression the article is of two independent sections, but the article did have out-of-date issues. Although this is not the first discussion on this split here. If this Nation.Cymru states full water powers could (but they were delayed) be devolved in the future, assuming full means all, then a split could be reconsidered then, although preferably longer than the time between this discussion and the last one here as well.  Dank Jae  20:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: The two main arguments for the oppose seem to stem from 'full' powers over water and cross border transfers. IMHO there is no such thing as 'full' powers over water and a simple review of watersheds on mainland Europe would show this, the key question is what government has the material and substantial powers over water in Wales. Based on the above my view is that it is the Welsh Government. The second point on cross border transfers being poorly served by a split is a red hearing in my view, the current article treats this incredibly poorly already and a split could allow greater examination of this and from the view point of each country, no doubt this would feature more heavily on the Welsh article. Additionally Severn Trent has now split off their customers in Wales into a renewed Hafren Dyfrdwy which means that Wales is now served by two companies so the remaining points around English companies is nullified.Allialliw (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Section removals
Two anon editors (may be the same person) have repeatedly blanked sections without a clear explanation, but there seems to be a hidden reason in good faith, although they did not state what it was and as an IP, harder to distinguish from unconstructive edits. As I am not into the industry not sure how to procede. @Sirfurboy, @Velella, @Mschiffler, did the removal of these sections make sense? Or should my reversion stay. I believe the article needs to be partially re-done again considering it was re-written to push through the split proposed above, which did not gain consensus right now, as well as general updating.

Plus has that split discussion gone stale? Can it be closed?  Dank Jae  21:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks DankJae. I already took a look at your reversion, and I am supportive. The edits were a mixed bag. Some looked fine, and others were definitely dubious. They left no edit summaries to explain what they were doing. I would like them to discuss here, as I think there was good faith, but it was too much at once and very hard to separate out the good from the bad. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sirfurboy. Mschiffler (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Fully supportive of your actions. I also noticed them and they geo-locate to the same position. They give every indication of a single person probably with an agenda but unclear what that agenda might be. I should have dealt with them myself but New Year got in the way (it is 11.35 on New Years day morning here!) Thanks for picking this one up.  Velella  Velella Talk  22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ...and as to the split discussion, yes please close it. You know the history and the editor concerned and the lack of justification for the proposal. I am too involved to close it having Voted! in the discussion.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, yes, fully agree. I'm sorry for making such edits again and I will talk about them here with you all in future.
 * Best wishes. 2A00:23C7:69B4:7101:21FF:732C:322D:A304 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also; I will set up my own account on here in a few days and I will put up some edits I want to do here on here with you so you can agree or not. 2A00:23C7:69B4:7101:21FF:732C:322D:A304 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We look forward to discussing this with you. Happy new year. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)