Jump to content

Talk:Goldfields Water Supply Scheme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comments

[edit]

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 usingUser:SatuSuro 04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can't help with that, my quick search agrees you've got the closest match already. -- Moondyne 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Photo

[edit]

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)[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
Yeah, condensers. Snottygobble 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor or someone else

[edit]

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)[reply]

Nathaniel Harper maintained all his life that it was he who convinced Forrest that the scheme could succeed. User talk:Hesperian 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the campaign against the scheme was lead by Thomas Walker, MP and editor of The Sunday Times. User talk:Hesperian 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box for the Scheme?=

[edit]
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)[reply]


Sheep?

[edit]

Sheep? SatuSuro 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granite

[edit]

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)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

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)[reply]

Ah me hearty! Youi've struck the cord! To be sure SatuSuro 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Change of Name of Article

[edit]

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)[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. -- Moondyne 12:32, 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?
Grant65 | Talk 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[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! SatuSuro 14:58, 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 | Talk 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

100 years?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Is there an accepted date for the completion of the project? --Peta 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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

The Golden Pipeline project - run by the National Trust treated 2003 as the big year... SatuSuro 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivets

[edit]

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)[reply]

Interesting. Would be a good subject for a biography article.[3][4][5] Hesperian 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Impossible number

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of off-topic paragraph

[edit]

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]

Interesting - if that is case, why dont you have a user name, your ip edit history is so short? JarrahTree 09:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goldfields_Water_Supply_Scheme&oldid=1207601394"