A fact from Goldfields Water Supply Scheme appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects 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.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!
comments
The category I found for water pipelines is ridiculous, if someone can find better -please!
User:SatuSuro My Ooops - the pipeline sub category wasnt showing on the computer i was using
User:SatuSuro04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
SatuSuro15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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.
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?
SatuSuro11:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Moondyne12:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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" --
Moondyne13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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!
SatuSuro14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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? --
Peta03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Maybe someone at the ABC stuffed up; I added the 1903 date to the anniversaries rotation for the portal and oz noticeboard. --
Peta02:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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
Gnangarra09:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The article says "By the early 1930s, 1,700,000 kilolitres (370,000,000 imp gal) of water per year - a quarter of the total volume of water being pumped from Mundaring Weir - was leaking from the pipeline." That amount of water leakage has to be in error by a factor of about a thousand! The water supply rate is about 23 kL/day which is 8.4 ML/yr. 1,700,000 kilolitres is 1,7000 ML which is impossible because it is 200 times the total water supply. (
Mollwollfumble (
talk)
00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC))reply
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Goldfields Water Supply Scheme. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have removed the paragraph "The choice of route for the
Eastern Railway through
Northam, rather than
York, is indicative of political patronage, as well as the avoidance of some other early routes to the goldfields. citation needed" as it is off topic, referring to the railway, not the pipeline. Although the two were linked, this article is not where this statement, cited or not, belongs.
106.68.10.235 (
talk)
04:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply