Talk:Mills on the River Wey and its tributaries

Confusing two mills

Mill Lane leather mill on the Ock is cited with [1] which I think is actually referring to Westbrook Mill on the Wey. The tannery just below Hatch Mill (flour) on the Ock does not seem to have a watermill. [2] Does anyone have a clearer reference that shows it does?SovalValtos (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The page cited mentions two different mills, with Westbrook Mill being differentiated from the "leather mill in Mill Lane". Checking the library of Scotland's old maps brings up no trace of a mill below Hatch Mill, but no evidence of a tannery there either. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49 I do see a tannery marked on the 25 inch map about 120 metres north from the flour mill and to the east of the new station. The Godalming museum ref is hardly definitive in establishing the existence of a leather mill in referring to "The Mill Lane leather mill" it could have meant "The Mill Lane leather tannery". The map does not show a separate mill race supply to the tannery which would favour it being a tannery rather than a leather mill. I think a further source is needed to differentiate; perhaps one of the books given as sources in the museum doc. Do you have access to Godalming library to check?SovalValtos (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Found that, for some reason it wasn't showing me that map yesterday, there are two buildings that could be mills, one right on te north side of Mill Lane and one where the river flows under the the angled building on what is now Station Approach. I will try and get to Godalming some time and visit the local studies library. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Finally got to walk around the site, the apartment block on the assumed leather mill site is called the Tannery and the river runs conveniently beside it but there is no evidence of a mill race that I could see. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Extra mills and their uses

The National Library of Scotland (NLS) source is coming up with at least one more mill, Salgasson mill (leather) [3]. Although a mill may be situated on a river it does not necessarily mean it is water-powered; it could be coal powered and using water for another purpose. Is the article supposed to be solely about watermills? NLS is also giving another use for Eashing mill - woolen.[4].SovalValtos (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the title is Mills, not watermills so a putative steam mill woud be allowed, in fact some of the later gunpowder mills at Chilworth were steam driven, presumably getting their water supply from the river. Salgasson Mill is listed as being on Borough Road so, presumably, close to Westbrook Mill. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the listing for Salgasson Mill that you refer to Murgatroyd49? It is indeed shown on the NLS map as being just to the west of Westbrook Mill adjoined by the field of tenters which may be those shown in the museum image.SovalValtos (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Found at <http://www.godalmingmuseum.org.uk/index.php?page=mills>. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Abinger Hammer Mill

User:Murgatroyd49 The grid ref is currently given as TQ 101 471 which is possible but unlikely as it is within Paddington farm and is also higher than the stream. If the source which says "situated on the extensive Hammer millpond, where the ‘Kingfisher’ farm shop and watercress beds are today."[5] is correct TQ 097 474 looks to be nearer the mark, though no mill is labelled as such on the 1896 25" map [6]. The map reproduced online in the source is too poor to help.SovalValtos (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to derive it from an old map, on rechecking your version looks better, I'll change it. Been having trouble with wikipedia servers dropping out half-way through the edit so may have some repairs to do anyway. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Article name

Should the name be changed to Mills in the River Wey Catchment? Much of the content is not directly related to 'on the Wey'.SovalValtos (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

42 mills on the Wey itself, 32 on tributaries. I feel the name is fine as is Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It was just a question - not something I am pushing for, but worth bearing in mind. Let's see if there are other opinions.SovalValtos (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Having just added another tributary, I think you are probably right. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49 I have no experience in article name changing so can do little to help. It would be nice to get the change right first time. Should it be

• Mills in the River Wey Catchment
• Mills in the river Wey catchment area
• Mills in the river Wey catchment streams
• River Wey catchment Mills etc.

Care with proper nouns' capitalisation needed; another area I cannot help.SovalValtos (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd go for "Mills in the River Wey catchment" adding area or streams is redundant and the last version looks wrong for reasons I can't explain! I can handle the rename procedure, it's actually fairly simple if a bit long-winded, serves me right for adding the page as a "See also" on too many other articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Mills in the River Wey catchment" looks OK to me. Is the 'River Wey catchment, Mills' a punctuation problem? No need for haste here though. If nothing else it would affect possible additions of maps or railway like infobox as used at Medway watermills where articles about tributaries have been split off. I need more time. Most of this must have been chewed through before though for other articles?SovalValtos (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the probem with 'River Wey catchment, Mills', is that the primary subject of the page is the mills and tacking the word on the end doesn't work for me. I've also been looking at the possibility of adding a river diagram, it won't be quite as complicated as the Medway version. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

'Mills in the River Wey system' is another possibilitySovalValtos (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

'Mills on the river Wey and its tributaries'SovalValtos (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49, I prefer the Mills on the river Wey and its tributaries to any of those suggestions above. Cheers to you both! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

+ me, well that’s three votes in favour, I’ll do it later when I can use the desktop, currently working on a tablet which is a bit restrictive. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Flour and Corn

The lead mentions producing corn. Some clarification seems to be needed as to how this was done; or is it another term for a flour mill?SovalValtos (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably referring to meal or animal feed from oats, same as flour production but not ground so finely. Some mills, eg Shalford, produced both using two sets of stones. Possibly should be deleted as it just confusing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The map source I look at at (NLS) does differentiate between flour and corn so an expansion on the info about such as Shalford different processes would be helpful. The lead would then have something it was based on in the article. I admire your building of the article Murgatroyd49.SovalValtos (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'll have a look at it. Have to confess I didn't write the lead, someone helpfully added it to my rather brief introduction. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to make it clearer. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Text v tables

The page won't work as tables as you lose the coherence once you get into the tributaries. I tried it once when I first set up the page, it didn't get out of my sandbox. It's also for consistency with other similar pages, eg the Medway watermills. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't propose to waste any more time on this, but you have only one level of subcategory, which could easily be indicated in a table in several different ways, eg by indentation, or (as I was planning to do) by a different-coloured heading. It would be much clearer.

• It is also unclear to me why eg "Wey North" is not part of "Wey River". It looks as if the "Wey River" category actually refers to tributaries, in which case why not say so?

• I was also going to do some copy editing, e.g. to make the terminology of the descriptions more consistent, and to edit out the 10-digit grid references, which give the position to the nearest metre, which is silly.---Ehrenkater (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ehrenkater: We will have to disagree on the use of tables I’m afraid, that’s a style thing, especially as I am hoping to add a “route-map” style diagram down the right hand side, as on the Medway page. See also my statement about consistency with other similar articles.

The Wey North and Wey South divisions are because that is the nomenclature of the river itself, it consists of two equal branches which join above Tilford, from there downstream it is just the Wey . See River Wey for details.

The Grid references are taken, where appropriate, from the Listing details at Historic England, no I don’t know why they are quite so precise either.

NB apologies for being a bit abrupt first time round, I was in the middle of doing some additions to the page and couldn’t work out what had happened as your change came up between edits. I thought I’d made an error and just reverted it without comment. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your time Ehrenkater is not wasted, it is worth considering the choice. At this stage of building the article, where new mills are still being added, I see no need to change to tables immediately though there are arguments both for and agin. Maybe when all the tributary mills have been added it will be clearer where to go. Colour as a means of indicating differences in a table can give accessibility problems MOS:COLORCODING. The grid references may benefit from different levels of detail depending on whether they are giving the general area of a lost mill or distinguishing between a mill and the adjoining mill house where the distance can be small.SovalValtos (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict. The following was my response to Murgatroyd's edit of 08:46 UTC.

@Ehrenkater: We will have to disagree on the use of tables I’m afraid, that’s a style thing, especially as I am hoping to add a “route-map” style diagram down the right hand side, as on the Medway page. See also my statement about consistency with other similar articles.

OK, look forward to seeing that.

Will be a little while, I am still finding mills!

The Wey North and Wey South divisions are because that is the nomenclature of the river itself, it consists of two equal branches which join above Elsted, from there downstream it is just the Wey . See River Wey for details.

Understood, but that should be explained in the article. In particular, they are shown in the Ordnance Survey maps, for example, as River Wey (North Branch) and (South Branch); that termnology is clearer and should be used in the article.

Will do

The Grid references are taken, where appropriate, from the Listing details at Historic England, no I don’t know why they are quite so precise either.

So change them.

See SovalValtos comments

NB apologies for being a bit abrupt first time round, I was in the middle of doing some additions to the page and couldn’t work out what had happened as your change came up between edits. I thought I’d made an error and just reverted it without comment. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood; apologies accepted :)

---Ehrenkater (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Illustration of format

South Branch and tributaries

Column headings here
Details here
River Ock
More details here
...

---Ehrenkater (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Future content

Murgatroyd49 do you have any vision as to how the article will develop? I am particularly thinking about the addition of images and sections of text about the history of the different types of Wey mills: flock, paper, gunpowder, turbine etc. Are there articles other than Medway watermills to use as precepts? No rush, I am sure you have plenty else to do. I might be able to help with photos which can be better taken in winter when there is less obscuring foliage. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question, I'll get back to you on that. At the moment I'm trying to work out a diagram to show the distribution of the mills on each section, again like Medway. Descriptions of the different types of mills is a whole new area! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

At first sight the Medway diagram [7] looks good. Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop can be helpful. Any expansion would have to be Wey specific.SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Roughly what I had in mind, off to the sandbox… Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Some possible sources given by Hampshire Mills Group [8].SovalValtos (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing mills

I've added all the mills I can find from the various suggested sources, however there are references to four mills in Guildford. One, obviously, is Town Mill but I haven't been able to establish what the others are. One might be Hogsmeat Mill which was actually the extension of Town Mill that now houses the turbine generator. I know there was another on on the opposite side of the river, the road name Millmead is a giveaway, though I don't know what it was or where exactly. There was a foundry on the site of what is now the Yvonne Arnaud theatre which may have incorporated a hammer mill and there is also mention of a sawmill, though whether that was water powered or not, again I don't know. If anyone has any ideas let me know!

Otherwise, I think the page is more or less complete now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You are quite the detective! Sorry that I am unable to add to anything regarding those three. The article is perfect and you should be feeling very pleased with yourself. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I add with pleasure my appreciation of your hard work. I have looked at NLS 25" [9] which suggests a site to the east of Millmead cottage is likely if not sufficient for verification. What looks like a leat approaching it is a bit of a giveaway. I cannot believe even such an industrious editor as you has been able to access all the suggested sources in such a short time, in particular those listed by Hampshire Mills Group [10], and I am not asking you so to do. If you could be bothered to list the ones you have checked thoroughly it might save a future contributor duplicating effort. There seems to be a problem with the links from grid refs (404 not found}. I am particularly keen that it is the sort of link which includes NLS; this [11] is an example of the desired result lead to from another article. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure Grid References used to link to Geohack, not sure why they no longer do so. Bit of a pain as I'll have to go through and convert them all to Coordinates, not today though!. As to which sources I've used, the ones I've accessed directly on-line are, of course, in the references. Because of the Covid-19 situation I haven't been able to get access to much printed material but used the Hampshire Mills Group lists of Mills Open and Listed Mills as pointers to look for sources on line. In addition I've used the Mills Archive [12]. Also a hunt through Wikimedia Commons turned up pictures of mills I hadn't known about before. As to the missing mill(s) what appears to be a leat to the east of the cottage is now quite a broad stream controlled by sluice gate at the far end, similar to the flood gates directly opposite the cottage. The latter is where the towpath suddenly collapsed late last year. The reference to the four mills is in Guildford, A short history, by Matthew Alexander. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Re the grid reference problem, I’ve reported it on the Template talk:Ordnance Survey coordinates page and a fix is in the offing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum, just tried it and it brings up a mini-map on the page as an overlay. Cool! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing mills recap

Going over the sources I can access, I think I have established what the 4 mills in Guildford were. Artington Mill I have just confirmed, its was where the White House pub now is. Town Mill, for much of it’s existence, has been operated as two separate mills, the Eastern Mill and the Western or Hogsmeat Mill. That accounts for three mills. Additionally I am fairly certain that the Guildford Foundry operated a hammer mill, possibly as an extension of the Hogsmeat Mill. This last one I am trying to find more information on, Surrey libraries reopen next week! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bourne Place Mill

I have recently carried out extensive work on the alleged Bourne Place Mill. Examination of both the 1841 and 1851 censuses shows Bourn Mill Place House, rather than as a working mill. Tithe maps from this period also confirm its use as a dwelling, rather than a working mill. There is no evidence that this building was ever a mill, mainly due to the fact that no waterway ever passed the building. There are contemporary references to a "Little Bourne Mill", also known as "Piggy's Mill". However, recently discovered papers suggest this was on the lower end of the Nadder Stream, downstream from the current Bourne Mill. Currently, the site would be in the centre of the Refuse Centre near the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout. The current grid reference would be approximately SU 85240 47345.

Discussion with elderly former owners of the building confirms no knowledge of any previous use as a mill. However, this is hardly conclusive on its own.

Once again, the main evidence for this supposition is the lack of any waterway, likely channel or feed for any mill at this location. a paper from 1967 written by F.W.Simmonds, whose family milled the area since the very early 1800s reads "Little Bourne Mill was occupied by Thomas Simmonds in 1802 and a few years later, when he went to Bourne Mill, by his son Daniel. It appears on old maps at various times seems to have ground corn, bone meal and malt. The wheel was turned by the tail race of Bourne Mill and when it was operating water backed up, to the detriment of the larger mill’s operation. Mill and the miller’s house, adjoining, were of light wooden construction and must have been fairly small. Work had ceased when the Guildford-Farnham railway was built in 1849---and the little mill probably went up in flames in the next 10 years."

In order to be driven by the tail race of the main Bourne Mill, it had to be downstream in the area I have indicated above. Simmonds paper starts with the discovery of large charred baulks of timber in the area indicated, which he suggests are from the burnt out mill.

Finally, Tithe and ordnance survey maps from the 1840s confirm the presence of a mill building where I have suggested.
Due to the absence of any evidence for Bourne Place being a mill and the discovery of Little Bourne Mill, might I request Bourne Place is removed and Little Bourne Mill substituted.

I have not looked at this in detail but are you confusing mills? Bourne Place Mill is cited in the article to Historic England (HE) [13] and the Coords give its position in the centre of the roundabout not in the recycling centre. The HE source seems to give some good detail.SovalValtos (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:GoScoutUK as you did not sign.SovalValtos (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As the idiot who added Bourne Place in the first place, let me say the following. The Historic England entry refers to mills, plural, but I couldn't work out whether that meant seperate buildings or two mills in the same building, such as at Guildford and Shalford, so left it as Bourne Place Mill. The information that one was fed by the tailrace of the other would clarify that. Do you have a quotable source? The problem with the names of mills is that they can change over time depending on a number of factors, including the name of the owner of the mill. There are several mills, both on the Wey and the Tillingbourne, that were known at various times as Botting's mill after a peripatetic miller. Other examples are where an older mill is demolished or destroyed, or simply goes out of use, and the name is transferred to another mill in the area.

As to the route of the watercourse, firstly the name Nadder alludes to the fact that the course varied over time and secondly, the major road works associated with the building of the Farnham by-pass and the link to the Hog Back, and befoe that the railway line, has involved rerouting and culverting of various watercourses. Agan, if you have quotable sources for your information I would be delighted to make the appropriate corrections to the page. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A further thought occurs, the Little Bourne Mill could be additional to the Bourne Place mill on a separate anabranch of the Nadder. As an idle thought, I wonder if Piggy's mill is a corruption of an older name or a reference to a rather portly miller? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoScoutUK:. Hi. An early 19th century Ordnance Survey Union map shows a Pidgsleys Mill in approximately the right area but its unclear whether it is on the Bourne stream or the Wey itself. Map link. This may be your Little Bourne Mill. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

let me say straight off I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I am not used to signing and adding information. I'm 'winging' it as they say. Apologies for not signing the original comment. There are three buildings in question here. Undoubtably, Bourne Mill is a valid entry, currently on the Guidlford Road and arguably one of the 6 mills mentioned in the Domesday Book. Etienne Robo mentions references in 13th and 14th century pipe rolls in his book 'Mediaeval Farnham'.

Little Bourne Mill is the mill mentioned in the documents found at the Museum of Farnham written by F.W. Simmonds in the 1960s. This is in the middle of the Refuse Centre and is on the Nadder Stream. According to Simmonds, it was undoubtedly in existence in the 1840s. The mill, Pidgesley's Mill shown on the 1816 OS map is confusing, as the map is of such small scale it is hard to locate it. There was a miller called Pisley in 1798 who owned Hatch Mill, but that is another mill altogether. In his booklet "La Medmulle: the story of Weydon Mill, Farnham, Surrey" by F W Simmonds (1968), he states "That could have been Woolmead Hatch Mill, between to-day's by-pass and East Street, variously described as Bishop's Mill (but they all belonged to the Bishop most of their time), East Mill and, after more recent millers, Piggott's, Pisley's (1798) and Darvill's (1833) Mill (hence Darvill's Lane)." I have added the bracketed dates from other source information.

Now we proceed to Bourne Mill Place. I can find no documents, other than the Historic England reference to this building being a mill. My feeling is that H.E. is incorrect here. Yes, the building looks like an old mill, in that it has a hipped roof, but that is all. H.E. is notoriously inaccurate in this area (viz Ivy Cottage also in the area and more than a kilometre out of place). A separate matter will be to get them to change their listing, but that is not for Wikipedia pages). You are quite correct in supposing the Nadder Stream might have changed its course, but I can find no 'modern' evidence of this. H.E. says Bourne Place is 18th century (which I agree) and all the references we can find show it as a house or accommodation since that time. Not only does FW Simmonds agree with this suggestion in the abovementioned pamphlet, but we have a document from the Surrey History Centre (SHC Ref No:1195/6/16) which quotes "Printed sale particulars Endorsed: Thomas Simmonds has purchased lot 1, Bourne Place etc, for 1,380 Endorsed: Thomas Simmonds has purchased lot 2 for 600 Annexed: 'Admeasurement of land & premises called Bourn Place' Messuage near Bourne Mill with brewhouse, barn, stable & appurtenances; close of 9a 1r 19p; parcel of 10a 3r 7p meadow near Bourne Mill with appurtenances, all in Farnham". Once again, no mention of Bourne Place being a mill.

I have put all this in talk and I will leave it to more-experienced editors to decide whether my thoughts allow you to remove Bourne Place and substitute Little Bourne Mill.

Guy GoScoutUK (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Guy, I'll try and through your points in order. You mention F W Simmonds 1960s paper and his booklet on Weydon Mill, are these published anywhere, eg, the Surrey Archaeological Collections, even if out of print? At the moment what we have is original research by yourself which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I'm now convinced that Pidgesley's Mill, as shown on the 1816 map is, in fact, Hatch Mill. One of the problems I've had in assembling this page is use of different names for the same mill and the same name for different mills! Various 19th century maps confirm that Woolmead Hatch Mill and Hatch Mill are one and the same. It's East Mill on the John Roque map.

Regarding Bourne Place (apparently known as Mill Place at one time) I'm wondering if what HE think is a mill is in fact the brewhouse mentioned in the sale particulars? Many thanks for the follow up, as I say what I need now is a secondary source to cite. I will go ahead and remove Bourne Place anyway. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the reference to the Simmonds booklet - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medmulle-Story-Weydon-F-W-Simmonds/dp/0901638005. I got a copy from the museum of Farnham. Guy GoScoutUK (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And does that reference :Little Boure Mill? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Under "Pipe Rolls" in the Simmonds book it states "Willey and Bourne were certainly early mills, but Rock Mill, of which vestigial remains can be seen by Moor Park Lane, may have been very old too, possibly the mill of the old Saxon Manor of Moor Park. There were also Woolmead Hatch Mill and Little Bourne Mill in Farnham, and, probably soon after the monastery's foundation in 1128, the mill of Waverley Abbey. Others in the Farnham Hundred were at Tilford, Frensham, Barford and Shottermill, at any rate in later years." You can see Simmonds clearly identifies not only Bourne but also Little Bourne separately. Out of interest for you, Rock Mill was not fed from the Nadder Stream but was fed from separate waterways from Badshot Lea. GoScoutUK (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Whitmore Vale Stream mills

The coords for some of these seem wrong; Barford Middle Mill being linked to Farnham. The order in Template:Wey South branch is suspect. I cannot concentrate on it sufficiently to check for sure.SovalValtos (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I'll check them out. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For some reason I've given it the Grid ref for Bourne Mill. And yes, I've got the upper and lower mills the wrong way round on the diagram. Thanks for the heads up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Hopefully I've got it right now, the grid ref for middle mill is only approximate but a lot closer than Farnham! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Rock Mill, Farnham

Text from the previous discussion separated to new thread GoScoutUK (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, that is adequate reference for LBM. Rock Mill is interesting, two separate sources give it's location as on the Wey itself, just upstream from High Mill where there is a weir feeding a by-pass channel round the mill. Rock Mill itself, or a least the last incarnation, was built by the Simmonds family. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Rock House and High Mill, Farnham

GoScoutUK (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all. I would be interested in knowing the references that say Rock Mill was ON the Wey, I'm pretty sure it never was as its position was at least 20 feet above the level of the Wey. Perhaps if you have time you can share here. Interestingly, the reference you cite to Rock Mill on the main page is to me (Guy Singer) via Chris Shepheard. He is one of the people helping me with our current mill investigation GoScoutUK (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Both the Mills Archive and Derek Stidder give the the position as SU 857 472, which is just below the weir I mentioned. Chris (or is it you?) quotes the same grid ref from Derek Stidder's book. I have Jack Hillier's book but he doesn't give location details. I was pretty sure it's wrong but I can't find a quoted source to confirm it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extract from the 1870 Ordnance Survey map - copyright expired 50 years after publication

I cannot offer any written as in published (book) proof of its location. However, I can offer the 1870 Ordnance Survey map to show it. As you can see, it is at the top of the escarpment, slightly to the right and above the words "Corn Mill". It is not ON the River Wey but fed by streams from the Badshot Lea area. It is also not on the Nadder Stream. This article from Chris Shepheard and me shows the outfall in the form of a waterfall, which itself runs into the River Wey - https://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=139733 - can this be used as a citation? The correct location should be more like SU 85728 47361 the difference between this and your grid reference is minor - 160m North of your reference - which is critical. GoScoutUK (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense, looking at google maps satellite view, there does appear to be ruins around the edge of the grass immediately west of the building marked by your grid reference, would that be it? From the map the tail race would appear to flow into the extension of the Nadder Stream. I will adjust the descripton and diagram accordingly. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We are both puzzled by the 'extension to the Nadder Stream'. However, I am sure we have everything in it's right place now. GoScoutUK (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Nadder joins the Wey below Hatch Mill but there is what is obviously an artificial channel that parallels Moor Park Lane and joins the Wey below High Mill, on the 1871 map the outfall from Rock Mill is actually shown crossing this channel. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please slow changing the article, I would be muddled for one! IMHO there are broader considerations as to the nature of the article to be discussed. We could get to something better than any of the previous sources if we are careful.SovalValtos (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Unless someone comes up with a new mill I am not planning anymore changes for the present. As to the future direction we'd better start a new section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Move proposal

I propose moving this article to List of mills on the River Wey. This is not an article about mills of the Wey; rather, it's a list of them. I think we could get away with a briefer title too (i.e. omit the "tributaries" bit and just explain that in the lead sentence. MIDI (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This article follows the format established for other, similar, articles. Also please see earlier discussion about naming the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough if there's consensus about the name (i.e. the "tributaries" bit). Could you please point me in the direction of precedent for not calling this a list? Thanks, MIDI (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

See: Medway watermills, Medway watermills (upper tributaries), Medway watermills (middle tributaries) for a start. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose a misleading name proposed. It is already more than a list.SovalValtos (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)