Talk:Martin Mere

Suggested Merger with WWT Martin Mere

I don't think that's a good idea. Martin Mere is a geographical entity. WWT Martin Mere is an institution located there. They're different in kind. Countersubject 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They may be different in kind, but in my opinion, they are sufficiently similar to warrant merging. Information is being duplicated in the articles and this is both unsatisfactory and avoidable. I would support the proposal to merge the two pages. Leebobs 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Essentially the same place and WWT now controls all the land round Martin Mere. Kahuzi 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a great deal to be said about Marin Mere which has nothing to do with birds. Rather than removing the article, rewrite it to include the other fields of information and merge the WWT material into the WWT Martin Mere article. Similarly, apart from a brief note, transfer any non-WWT information which gets into the other article to here. (At present, there is very little of this) If at present, this leaves this article as one line: OK, leave it like that as an invitation for people to get to work. (RJP 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• Against. The area of Martin Mere is much larger than the WWT reserve. The reserve only occupies a few relatively small lakes that were dug out artificially some time after the Mere was drained. The actual area occupied by the Mere in the past now forms a large plain of farmland, nature reserves (not just the WWT reserve), villages and towns. To merge the Martin Mere article with WWT Martin Mere would be like merging the City of Bristol's wiki into a wiki for Bristol Zoo. --Shearluck 11:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge (again)

I've read the above discussion in depth, but in the greater scheme of things, I am at a loss to see why there should be two different articles, having a lot of duplicated material in common. If they are different things, that should be made crystal clear; if the WWT is separate from the Mere, and does *markedly* different or extensive things, no problem. But I don't see it at present. Maybe things have changed since 2007, but it's not apparent to me. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check both articles - there isn't much duplicated material. Were the WWT reserve called "WWT Lancashire, I suggest no such merger would be proposed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it as it is. Rodhullandemu 14:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture

It seems apparent that a contributor is happy to inform us that the mere stretched as far as Chorley (no evidence) and to the Camelot Theme Park. Am I being cynical in suggesting that this is some form of free advertising for the theme park? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.84.124 (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The given reference does not support the lake being martin mere and the saxton map of 1577 shows the pre-drainage martin mere very far away indeed from this location. - Galloglass 11:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)