Talk:Thames Valley

This article was nominated for deletion on DATE. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

UK geography Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. River Thames (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames

It would be useful to gather together a list of sources for the varying definitions of the Thames Valley, so we can eventually improve the article with a selection of them. I've started such a list at Talk:Thames Valley/AreaSources -- Waterstones 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this article correct in talking about industry changing in the mid NINETEENTH century? Surely it should be 20th. Not much call for information industries i.e. computing in the 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.111.161 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really don't think this topic is notable enough to have it's own article. This is supported by the inability of anyone so far to provide reliable sources for defining the area as distinct from the M4 Corridor. I propose we merge with that article or delete it and redirect to that one. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is some overlap, but the Thames Valley and the M4 Corridor are distinctly different entities. The article just needs more references. . .Mean as custard (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you find any? Particularly, one defining the Thames Valley? Because I can't, or I'd start adding them to make the article notable --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have removed information that has had citation tags dating back to 2009(!) and added further citation tags. Hopefully this clean-up will make clearer my view that this topic is not worthy of its' own article --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The use of the term "Thames Valley" long pre-dates the M4, although clearly the area overlaps with the M4 corridor, which is a much more recent term and covers an area extending much further westwards (as far as Swansea, perhaps). There are multiple published sources naming the Thames Valley - examples here. Although clearly the valley can easily be defined technically in geographical terms, the term is often used more loosely. But, the fact that there is no one single definition does not mean that there should not be an article about it - many less well-defined areas (such as the West Country) also have articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Understood - my problem is only that the "Thames Valley" is not notable outside of its relationship to other articles, like the M4 Corridor, Thames Valley Police and the River Thames itself. What is there to say, past what is already said in the disambiguation page? --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There may not be a great deal to say about it, but it is an area that is referred to in multiple reliable sources, and there should be a relatively short but well-referenced article about it. So, the current article is a starting point for improving it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh look, it is notable: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/3865943 - I'll try factoring this into a reasonable article, but anyone else is welcome to crack on too. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Based on the information gleaned from the AfD I have rewritten much of the page, which is now sufficiently sourced. I have removed the map (since it didn't actually show the Thames Valley at all) and I've requested a new map on the Wikipedia Graphics Lab Map Workshop. If you wish to add more information to this article please source it - I'm aware that some people would disagree on the extent of the defined area, but I put effort into sourcing these areas so they're not just my opinion (in fact, my opinion has changed since researching this) --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Until a new map is prepared, it is best to retain the old map, but with an amended caption noting simply that it shows the course of the river. Remember that we are an international encyclopedia, and therefore need to give at least a basic indication of roughly whereabouts the article covers. I've also had a go at revising the opening para, retaining some of the previous version but removing duplication and unnecessary detail. It's never a good idea to start an article with "X is a term for..." - better to start with "X is....". Also, no need for a "See also" section when terms are linked in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the cleanup. I've changed the image to the Thames Valley Police Jurisdiction, because at least that's a reasonable proxy for the Thames Valley (the other image is just the south of England, it's more misleading than anything else). I've modified your rework to remove this "generally taken" line - the boundary changes very much on context. Economically, it's essentially synonymous with the M4 Corridor east of Swindon (Bucks, Berks and Wiltshire) and Oxfordshire is rarely included (since it's a separate tech cluster). --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've had another go - the Thames Valley National Character Area has more tightly defined limits (see map here), and needs to be differentiated from the Thames Valley as a broad and ill-defined area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the M4 Corridor from the opening paragraph since there's no good way of including it accurately without being verbose. It's important that we maintain the distinctions between the contexts. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

As an economic concept, the M4 corridor is strongly related to the Thames Valley but it is not a sub-concept, merely one with heavy overlap. Therefore both should be handled separately, with links between them and content discussed in both articles if appropriate. For instance, Oxford is sometimes included in the Thames Valley, but never in the M4 Corridor. That means this article should touch on Oxford, even though the article on the M4 Corridor shouldn't. Likewise the M4 Corridor's article should discuss Cardiff (even though its of no relevance here).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In every source I've read the two are used synonymously, with the Thames Valley tech hub being considered essentially "the eastern part of the M4 Corridor". --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

However it is defined, it clearly includes part of the M4 corridor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree it clearly includes part of the M4 corridor. However its also plain that several sources consider the Thames Valley to be a much broader area than just the bit between Reading and London. Both the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and the relevant section of the FSB cover the entirety of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire not just the strip near the M4.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply