Talk:The Broads

Untitled

Why are some links in bold? --Brion 02:01 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Because I am trying to highlight the Broads (lakes) vis-avis the villages/towns. Is there a Wiki convention that prevents me from doing that? User:Renata

None at all, but I find it helps to include a brief note explaining ad-hoc tyopgraphical conventions to the reader. I've added such. --Brion 06:03 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Did sea levels really rise? That doesn't seem very likely to me. - anon

Is that some kind of denial of global warming?? 80.3.128.5 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Depth of Broads

I was on the Broads today. Does anyone know their depth, or the depth of the channels? —Christiaan 22:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found this http://www.livinglakes.org/broads/ which says they're "mostly less than four metres deep" —Christiaan 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map + Flows

It would be great if someone could get a map up on here. Also I heard something about how the rivers are all tidal running to and from Great Yarmouth, in places at a higher level than the surrounding land (hence the historic use of windmills to pump water into them from the land). Anyone know better details or good sources of reliable info? — 80.3.128.5 13:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Map still needed! Ed8r (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

One or more maps are still needed showing the Norfolk and Suffolk areas, the Authority area and the features named in the body of the article.SovalValtos (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Water area/navigable area

Some of the information on this seems inconsistent. We say:

The total area of the national park is 303 km², with over 200 km² of waterways ... These 18 broads provide approximately 4 km² (990 acres) of water for navigation.

Are we really saying that only 2% of the water area is available for navigation. That strikes me as far too low. And 4 km² really isn't very big, I would have guessed Breydon Water on its own would be bigger than that. -- Chris j wood 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just check the source for the over 200 km² of waterways, and it actually says over 200 km² of navigable waterways. So we have two contradictary statements here. As the 200 km² claim is sourced, and the 4 km² is not, I am (for now) removing the latter. -- Chris j wood 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't. The source actually says over 200 km of navigable waterways, which is quite different. Correcting again. -- Chris j wood 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this means an average width of 20M over all navigable areas, to get 4 km², don't think it's THAT far out but maybe a bit.

Is it a National Park?

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act of 1988 made the Broads Authority into a Special Statutory Authority which gave it parity with national park authorities. However, it is not a National Park! -- 88.111.11.207 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above from the article itself, as I think a discussion here is more appropriate. I'm torn two ways. Past experience makes me loath to trust anonymous contributions too far. But I cannot find anything that definatively states the the Broads are a National Park. If it isn't then our article title is misleading and needs changing. Anybody know more?. -- Chris j wood 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It has a slightly different statutory basis, it is true. But on the Broads Authority's Website it says that it has the "status of a national park", whatever that means. Lots and lots of government sources (including Ordnance Survey maps) call it a National Park. It is true that the statute doesn't specifically use those words, but for certain purposes it provides that it is considered to be a National Park. Morwen - Talk 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AIUI, the Broads does not have National Park status, in which case this article should be moved and edited. It is *treated* as a National Park, and to all intents and purposes it is identical with one, however it was created under a separate piece of legislation. In numerous different cases, you can find reference to "National Parks and the Broads", implying it is not one itself, but treated alongside them. Also, on the Broads Authority's website [1] it states,

These duties are similar to those of Britain's national parks and by creating a Special Statutory Authority the Government recognised that the Broads needed the same level of protection as the national parks of England and Wales. The Broads benefits from being part of a wider family of specially protected areas, including the national parks, yet also has the advantage of its own tailor-made legislation in order to deal with specific issues in the Broads, notably the protection of navigation interests.

which clearly suggests (in a rather round-about way) a distinctively different status to the other National Parks. DWaterson 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading Schedule 3 of the 1988 Act [2] and in particular section 2. --Henrygb 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Broads National Park → The Broads – As per the discussion above, The Broads is not strictly a National Park, it is only treated as one. It was created under special legislation which gives it a status similar to a National Park, but not of one.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - Move proposer, as above. DWaterson 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - since it ought to be something like The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads GraemeLeggett 13:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The Broads is common usage, and AFAIK globally unambiguous. People don't usually talk about The Broads National Park or The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Chris j wood 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason not to follow Arthur Ransome. Septentrionalis 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

To clarify my statement above and comment on naming of the area in question. As a local, I talk of the Norfolk Broads or the Suffolk Broads - the Act in question refers to them as the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. GraemeLeggett 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Water pollution

There is a lot going on to do with water pollution since the end of the second world war in the Broads. Mercury dumping combined with phosphate and nitrate based fertiliser run-off has left the water murky and nowhere near as clear as it once was. It would be nice, if anybody knows more about this topic, to get a section in here. Details of the Clearwater 2000 project that took place in Barton Broad would be good too. I'm just starting a dissertation on this so if nobody adds anything about it in the mean time, then I should be able to add some good stuff within a year or so.

Merging Norfolk/Suffolk Broads in here.

As they articles on the Norfolk Broads and Suffolk Broads are merely stubs, it seems to make sense to merge/redirect here. (A lot of people say Norfolk Broads when they mean The Broads anyway). Please make any opposition known (if there is none before Sunday, I will proceed with the merge)

Support - no need for three articles on essentially the same subject. DWaterson 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll get interesting if they finally decide on a name. Norfolk is pro "Norfolk Broads" for the whole area, Suffolk is worried that the bits in Suffolk will end up in a area officially called the "Norfolk Broads". GraemeLeggett 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged Ratarsed 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hire Boats

Apart from the brief reference I have added there is no mention of hire boats on the Broads. Since these probably form the majority of the boats present and they have a long history going back before WW1 this seems odd.--Hymers2 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

location map

The Broads

I've uploaded a location map of the Broads to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired. Some of the rivers look like they need tweaking, I'll get on this soon

If this is created, it allow enable creation a map of the Broads similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Eutrophication

I was surprised to find no mention of eutrophication on this page. I'm going to add a section here, but I think it may deserve its own page e.g. 'eutrophication of the norfolk broads'. I'm fairly new to this, so could someone wise in the ways of wikipedia decide if it needs a new page or if it is better kept here.Wise zoologist (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Could someone please sort out the references for the eutrophication topic. I've given up.Wise zoologist (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Broads

I'm the one who'd added the term "lakes" in an attempt to define what "broads" are. Evidently that term isn't acceptable. I'm sorry to have introduced an error, and I'm glad somebody caught it.

But something must define "broads" for non-English readers. It is not a term I'm familiar with (not as a descriptor of landscape, at any rate), and I have plenty of education and read widely. Someone reading an encyclopedia article on The Broads shouldn't have to go to a dictionary to discover what the article deals with in the most basic sense.

Please consider clarifying this, preferably in the first paragraph.

Thanks again for catching my error.

05:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) KC 05:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

It was not a mistake and I have added some clarification.Charles (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response—and for the clarity. A superb article! KC 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Broads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630074650/http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/authority/about-us/the-broads-act.html to http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/authority/about-us/the-broads-act.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928163251/http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads/live/authority/consulations/the-broads-national-park-authority-bill/Letter_from_Bishop.pdf to http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads/live/authority/consulations/the-broads-national-park-authority-bill/Letter_from_Bishop.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Recreation

The statement "and the design of the boats have included several innovative features, including short fin keels and a separate rudder. The design was eventually used on seagoing yachts from the 1960s." is contentious/dubious. The evolution of sailboat design is *very* complicated, and the Broads boats are probably better regarded as a continuation and development of a 19thC line of design that was very little used in salt water design in the UK between about 1914 and the 1960s. This image, for example, shows an early 20thC German boat, albeit with a centreboard, that is very much of the short keel and separate rudder style. http://www.fky.org/prestodata/pics.php4?pic=1904/12/s1904-12-0280-092.jpg&sec_id=8ca09af3a824995da1dceb387d3cbb93 There are doubtless numerous others out there. But really isn't the whole subject much too technical for this particular article and the sentence would be better ommitted? The supplied reference is not to a specialised work on the evolution of sailboat design, and I imagine the author simply didn't know enough about 19th C design. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The Norfolk Broads

Let’s face it, everyone knows the area as that. So not to mention this right at the very beginning, in the first para of the lede, is ridiculous. That it is mentioned much further down the lede makes no difference to this argument. I’m raising this here as my edit to put it in para. 1 was reverted, as this “was dealt with” lower down. “Dealt with”!!! Good grief. We’re all about reflecting what is, not deflecting something to lower down. Boscaswell talk 22:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not everyone necessarily does know the area by that name, though I believe that a great many people do indeed use that term, and in an inaccurate generalised way when they have in mind the Suffolk Broads too. Wherever it appears, I think it could do with referencing. I'd expect we can all agree we don't need to have this piece of info appear twice in the lede so we can perhaps agree a form of words that works for all. I note that 'Norfolk Broads' as a search term redirects to this page. cheers Geopersona (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: I reverted your edit because it meant that the same information was repeated in the lead, in rapid succession (by the way: WP:AGF). I see the problem though, and I agree that "Norfolk Broads" is a common name that needs to be dealt with – though I don't agree that it has to be dealt with in the first sentence as you are demanding. I did think afterwards that a possible solution would be simply to move the existing third paragraph ("Although the terms Norfolk Broads and Suffolk Broads are used to identify specific areas within the two counties respectively, the whole area is frequently referred to as the "Norfolk Broads".") to the end of the first, above the information about the extent of the area. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed opening:

"The Broads (known for marketing purposes as The Broads National Park) is a network of mostly navigable rivers and lakes in the English counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Although the terms "Norfolk Broads" and "Suffolk Broads" are used to identify specific areas within the two counties respectively, the whole area is frequently referred to as the Norfolk Broads.

The lakes, known as broads, were formed by the flooding of peat workings. The Broads, and some surrounding land, were constituted as a special area with a level of protection similar to a national park by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. The Broads Authority, a special statutory authority responsible for managing the area, became operational in 1989.

The area is 303 square kilometres (117 sq mi), most of which is in Norfolk, with over 200 kilometres (120 mi) of navigable waterways. There are seven rivers and 63 broads, mostly less than 4 metres (13 ft) deep. Thirteen broads are generally open to navigation, with a further three having navigable channels. Some broads have navigation restrictions imposed on them in autumn and winter, although the legality of the restrictions is questionable."

@Dave.Dunford: Excellent! Boscaswell talk 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: Thanks. I've made the change as proposed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

St. Benet's Abbey image title

The image with the caption St. Benet's Abbey is not of the Abbey of which nothing remains visible above ground. It is of the ruined gatehouse (the stone part) and the drainage mill which was later built over it (the brick part) now also ruined. The site of the Abbey is a couple of hundred metres or so the ESE of the gatehouse and is marked by a large,(modern) wooden cross whose shadow is just visible on Google Earth (3D magnified). I propose to change the image caption to "The ruined gatehouse of St. Benet's Abbey." Mike Spathaky (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yachts

Seem to be a lot of use of Yacht when I think sailing dingy is more appropriate. Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Broads are used by both yachts and sailing dinghies (sic) in substantial numbers. All the references to yachts in the article are clearly to proper yachts and not sailing dighies. Perhaps the latter deserve a mention too. Mike Spathaky (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Second navigable link

"There is also a second navigable link to the sea, via the River Waveney and its link to Oulton Broad."

In the context of the wider "Geography" section, what does this mean? What is the first navigable link to the seat explicitly mentioned in that section? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)