Talk:Goldfields Water Supply Scheme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Goldfields Water Supply Scheme appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 August 2006. |
 |
 |
Goldfields Water Supply Scheme is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
The category I found for water pipelines is ridiculous, if someone can find better -please! SatuSuro My Ooops - the pipeline sub category wasnt showing on the computer i was usingSatuSuro 04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- can't help with that, my quick search agrees you've got the closest match already. -- Moondyne 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Photo
Photo required 
Done
-
- Well Mundaring Weir is already covered - so it needs to be one of the pumping stations (not number 1 or 2) + a pipeline picckie I would say. SatuSuro 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- There were very expensive water producing issues in Kal in 1890's - I think they may have had the 1890's version of a desalinator? SatuSuro
- Yeah, condensers. Snottygobble 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- There were very expensive water producing issues in Kal in 1890's - I think they may have had the 1890's version of a desalinator? SatuSuro
 To-do list for Goldfields Water Supply Scheme: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
[edit] O'Connor or someone else
There was a late 20th century bid to claim that it was someone before O'Connor who had suggested the scheme.SatuSuro 09:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nathaniel Harper maintained all his life that it was he who convinced Forrest that the scheme could succeed. Snottygobble 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the campaign against the scheme was lead by Thomas Walker, MP and editor of The Sunday Times. Snottygobble 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Box for the Scheme?=
-
- Actually, Mundaring Weir, O'Connor articles tie in so much that they have potentially a large amount of duplicated info.
the GWSS article possibly could do with a side info box that links -
- People - O'Connor, Forrest, the Sunday Times editor of the time, at least
- Places - Pump Stations, other places of relevance (ie from Pipeline Tour book)
- Stats - volumes, heights, lengths, distances, pumps/engines, money, etc etc
-
- Just an idea/suggestion? SatuSuro 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sheep?
Sheep? SatuSuro 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Explained in links related to the most recent version of the scheme :) SatuSuro 06:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Granite
The aboriginal water sources - Hunt's Wells - Granite outcrops of Western Australia - route of railway and pipeline - are inextricably linked, would apprecciate any further info or help on the details of this particular line of thought, :) SatuSuro 06:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms
I wonder about inter-related issues of the Federation referendum and the Reform League separation movement in the goldfields ("Auralia" - see Secessionism in Western Australia) and how much those isssues had to do with the scheme proceeding or the level of opposition from city areas. Perhaps there was a degree of payback involved. Certainly the Reform League threat would have been a significant driver in the success of the Commonwealth of Australia Bill being passed with a large majority.
You could write a book on this. -- Moondyne 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah me hearty! Youi've struck the cord! To be sure SatuSuro 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change of Name of Article
Considering the extant talk page, and obvious history of more than one editor working on this article, I am concerned that another can come and change the title of the article in the face of the evidence of usage in texts, catalogue entries, and the various names of the scheme. If there is specific evidence of the scheme (which has been known as that for almost a hundred years now) has been known as a project - could we please either have the details given, or perhaps a reversion of this change? SatuSuro 11:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Without any basis on historical accuracy, I prefer "Scheme" to "Project". The latter sounds more like a one-off capital works with little reference to its future use (I'm not explaing myself very well I know). Scheme more correctly refers to its long-term use, which is also what the article is about. But, as I said, I have no idea about the official terminology, the above is just personal taste. -- Moondyne 12:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi SatSuro & Moondyne. Well...a Google search of "wa.gov.au" websites suggests that you are partly right. "Goldfields Water Supply Scheme" gets 83 hits while "Goldfields Water Supply Project" gets only 8. I apologise for a flawed move based on faulty research. However.....the generic "Goldfields Water Supply" gets 217 hits, none of which appear to be about Mundaring Weir! (And, BTW, it seems odd to me that we have a redirect to Mundaring Weir at Goldfields Water Supply!) SatSuro, you refer on my talk page to "the more recent mouthfuls of what the scheme was known as in the 1960's." Had Wikipedia existed 100 or even 40 years ago the article may well have been called something else. At some point in the future the name will probably be different again. However...Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name among English speakers. In that light, it could be argued that the article should be moved to Goldfields Pipeline. But then there is the risk of confusion with gas pipelines, other "goldfields" etc. What do you think?
-
-
- "Goldfields Pipeline" - too ambiguous and doesn't refer to the dam, pumping stations or reservoirs.
But now you mention it, I kind of like "Goldfields Water Supply". Its a bit shorter and punchier. We can steal that redirect. -- Moondyne 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)I still prefer "Goldfields Water Supply Scheme" -- Moondyne 13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Goldfields Pipeline" - too ambiguous and doesn't refer to the dam, pumping stations or reservoirs.
-
- Grant, thanks for your reflections on the issue. No need to apologise - what I think we need to do is try to see what the main information receptacles have - I am suggesting that if you look at State Ref Library online databsase - that the title chosen is the closest fit with their subject entry.
If you look at Tauman/Evans et al - from memory they tend to call it 'the scheme' - and hence I rest with the original. Also, I suppose the parliamentary debates and the "official names" as held by the earlier versions of the water authority usually call it the 'coolgardie water supply scheme'. "Common name amongst local users" if you look at the article so far - the National Trust have appropriated the whole thing and 'created' the 'Golden Pipeline' 'Project'(!) but I would never use that - in the text of their pamphlets - they do revert to the GWSS... So I think we should revert. If we can agree! SatuSuro 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. As I alluded before I do feel that Goldfields Water Supply should redirect here though, not to MW. I mean, I don't think many people searching with the words "Goldfields Water Supply" will be looking for the weir. Grant65 | Talk 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with that - I've changed it. I'll also change the article to GWSS. Onward and upward I say! -- Moondyne 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 100 years?
I was listening to radio national this morning and they were saying that today (March 23) is the centenary of completion. How did they work that out? --Peta 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- It could be anything. There's a doco on ABC-TV on Sunday night http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200703/programs/ZY8768A001D25032007T193000.htm which may be worth a watch. —Moondyne 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there an accepted date for the completion of the project? --Peta 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The official opening ceremony was held on 24 January 1903 at Mt Charlotte in Kalgoorlie. I have no idea what happened on 23 March 1907. p67, img, [1], [2]. —Moondyne 06:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe someone at the ABC stuffed up; I added the 1903 date to the anniversaries rotation for the portal and oz noticeboard. --Peta 02:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The official opening ceremony was held on 24 January 1903 at Mt Charlotte in Kalgoorlie. I have no idea what happened on 23 March 1907. p67, img, [1], [2]. —Moondyne 06:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there an accepted date for the completion of the project? --Peta 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- There were openings and openings - one at the weir, then kalgoorlie - and there could well have been other aspects of the project having other bits and pieces officially opened at various stages
The Golden Pipeline project - run by the National Trust treated 2003 as the big year... SatuSuro 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rivets
I was wandering around up there today an found a plaque that recognises Mephan Ferguson for inventing a lockingbar that made the joining of pipe sections without using rivets. Rivets were previously used to join pipes but they slowed the water flow and were prone to leakage. source quote is "method of Pipe making" by G and C Hoskins. Also the lockingbar design is the symbol used on the pipline trail signs Gnangarra 09:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Would be a good subject for a biography article.[3][4][5] Hesperian 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mephan Ferguson c1900.jpg is now on commons though I did some minor edits to reduce the amount of visable damage, also starting an article at User:Gnangarra/Mephan Ferguson Gnangarra 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
