This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
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 Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
I wonder whether we need a section on History here? In my mind, this article should be about the stretch of water itself, rather than the areas around it and their development. Any thoughts? Perhaps we should base the article structure on what Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers suggests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's what was basing it on :-) - section 6.2 history.--NHSavage (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
although on the other hand, I am not sure how well the Culm fits into the description there. "Describe what is known about the different inhabitants along the river, along with a description of the scientific exploration expeditions/efforts. Typically, start from indigenous people and work up from there.". Now would be a good time to reach consensus about the scope of the article. Looking at some of the (very few!) featured articles on rivers they do seem to be about the whole watershed, not just the stretch of water. Little Butte Creek is probably a useful comparison as it is the same length.--NHSavage (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where the history relates specifically to the river I think it is OK. (eg if the hill fort were built at that site because the river offered transportation or protection, or the Roman signal was next to a ford or bridge). We did this when working on the nearby River Parrett. The UK rivers guidance might also be useful.— Rodtalk 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both useful resources, thanks. Rather different to the advice at the WikiProject Rivers - but probably more appropriate to a UK context.--NHSavage (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is now history.--NHSavage (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
