Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dams/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Assessment stuff
I began to work on making the proper subcategories and templates and so on for the nifty automated assessment statistics I've seen elsewhere. I think I figured out how to do it, more or less, but have only managed to get part way through the work. Time for a break. Will try to figure it out and finished it later. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up. Pfly (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I assessed a bunch off the top of my head along with most on the List of world's tallest dams and have only assessed two as top importance: Jinping I, (soon to be the world's tallest) and the actual list. High importance dams I added included the tallest in that country, very controversial or historical, on a major river, etc. Do dams within the U.S. carry a higher importance because we are on English Wikipedia? --NortyNort (Holla) 09:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh, I've been trying to get the assessment bot thing to work all evening and seem to have only made things worse. Might need to ask someone who knows what they are doing to come fix the mess I seem to have made. On importance, I was approaching it the way it seems to be done in the WP:Rivers--mid being "average", most rivers/dams, top being those few that are extraordinary for some reason, and high being those that are "above average", remarkable in some way, but not to top level. It's all subjective of course, but sometime we should try to come up with some general criteria/guidelines. For rivers the low importance level seems to be for streams of local significance--small and known about, if at all, by locals. So I figured for dams it could be similar. There must be tens of thousands of small "local" dams in the US alone, like minor diversion weir-like dams, small dams on ranches for catching a bit of water for small-scale irrigation, etc. There may not be many Wikipedia pages on such things, but that's the kind of thing I was thinking about anyway. I'm certainly open to taking a different approach though. I guess we should hold off tagging too much until the template gets fixed up better. I had a bit of fun going on a tagging spree this afternoon before I set about breaking the assessment summary statistics system! Pfly (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is that the bot that makes the summary chart "Dam articles by quality and importance"? I will work with the assessment scale on the project and tweak the criteria, let me know what you think. I don't think the assessments should be hard and I believe we are thinking along the same lines. I saw you and Shannon went on a tagging spree yesterday. I got a little excited and did one too. I think we have the majority of significant dams covered and the rest are likely to be "low" and "mid". I had been thinking of this project for awhile and am happy Shannon already did most of the leg-work. I think we can get some good work done. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh, I've been trying to get the assessment bot thing to work all evening and seem to have only made things worse. Might need to ask someone who knows what they are doing to come fix the mess I seem to have made. On importance, I was approaching it the way it seems to be done in the WP:Rivers--mid being "average", most rivers/dams, top being those few that are extraordinary for some reason, and high being those that are "above average", remarkable in some way, but not to top level. It's all subjective of course, but sometime we should try to come up with some general criteria/guidelines. For rivers the low importance level seems to be for streams of local significance--small and known about, if at all, by locals. So I figured for dams it could be similar. There must be tens of thousands of small "local" dams in the US alone, like minor diversion weir-like dams, small dams on ranches for catching a bit of water for small-scale irrigation, etc. There may not be many Wikipedia pages on such things, but that's the kind of thing I was thinking about anyway. I'm certainly open to taking a different approach though. I guess we should hold off tagging too much until the template gets fixed up better. I had a bit of fun going on a tagging spree this afternoon before I set about breaking the assessment summary statistics system! Pfly (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
With WP:Energy
Hi. Most current dam articles are currently hydroelectric dams, which also fall under WP:Energy. So putting up another wikiproject such as WP:Dams would increase the templates on the talkpages. So, it would be nice if a hydroelectric=yes parameter could be implimented in {{WikiProject Dams}}, linking to WP:Energy. Rehman(+) 08:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That makes sense. It would also be nice to have template parameters like
needs-infobox=yes(like the {{Rivers}} template). I don't know how to do this though. Just learning about WikiProject stuff, including the templates. Pfly (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I would be happy to help, but unfortunately (as per my new note at my userpage) I am not allowed to edit wiki while at work. ;) So, will probably see what I can do when I get home. Or, most probably, seeing this message another user might be able to help. Also if you dont mind, please inform User:NortyNort about this, as I see s/he is on an {{WikiProject Dams}}-tagging spree; it would be nice to tag it with the updated (to be) template at once. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 09:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Dam infobox element
I'm working on my first article about a dam (have written dozens of articles on unrelated subject matter). I had a question about the dam infobox. There is an article List of largest dams based on the volume of the structure itself. I have this piece of info for my dam, but am not seeing volume as an element in the infobox (though I admit I'm not familiar with all the terminology). If this is a notable enough characteristic for a list article, it seems as if that should be one of the optional pieces of information for the box. Again, I have little knowledge and experience in this area, so apologies if this is a stupid question. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is a good suggestion. I brought it up at the template's talk page. I wanted to make a few changes to the template and that is a good one.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I recommend establishing some guidelines for significant figures. I've come across at least a couple of instances where the storage capacity is carried out to seven or even eight figures, right down to the single acre-foot. That level of precision is impossible. The USGS's streamflow gauging program limits precision to three significant figures, which should be sufficient for this project and would make the info boxes easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixeljim (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
AlexNewArtBot for this project
Hello, I set up a new article feed with AlexNewArtBot for this project. I made the search term coding here. I don't think it will be too hard for the bot to find new dam articles as our search criteria is limited. But if there are any other words that should be included/excluded let me know or if you know how to work the coding, you can edit it. Any new article put in any area of Category:Dams will register as well. Soon it should be putting new articles on the main page in a section, I don't exactly know where for sure. We can have the bot put them in a sub-page as well if it gets cluttered.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reservoirs and dams are related. An article about a reservoir usually contains info about the dam. Also, you can add "embalse" and "pantano", Spanish words for "reservoir". emijrp (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Dam lists
Hi. I have noticed that there currently is no uniformity in dam lists. For example, we have list titles as:
- List of dams in... (Prefix)
- List of reservoirs in... (Prefix)
- List of dams and reservoirs in... (Prefix)
- List of reservoirs and dams in... (Prefix)
I propose to move all these titles to a uniform "List of dams and reservoirs" type of name (or any other uniform title based on consensus). And probably add a navigation template to interlink all. Rehman 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is true and is part of an issue Shannon brought up on the project page and in an old discussion on the List of reservoirs and dams talk page. I was thinking of starting a broad discussion soon but you beat me to it. I support having a uniform "List of dams and reservoirs in..." like you pointed out above. Most reservoirs are named after their dams but this is not always the case and I think both should be in the title. The only problem is that the list would have to have links to both the dam article and the reservoir article. Most of the time we have one or the other. That is why I think you get articles like List of dams in Turkey. I don't have a problem with that article because it just lists dams, not reservoirs. What I definitely support now is a switched "reservoirs and dams" to "dams and reservoirs". If we go with one instead of the other though, which one? --NortyNort (Holla) 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Between "reservoirs and dams" and "dams and reservoirs", I don't see any problem in either one. So, just for selections sake, I would vote for "dams and reservoirs". Simply to tally with the alphabetical order (dams and reservoirs). ;) Rehman 05:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, the {{Asia topic}} type templates support "reservoirs and dams", so we might have to stick to that. But of course, we could discuss it at the template talk to see if it is ok to change... Rehman 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most "reservoirs and dams" (or maybe "dams and reservoirs" for that matter) lists only dams.
I suggest we rename obvious cases and do the necessary relinking and redirect cleanups. We could also inform Template talk:Asia topic (and other related topics) to change the links to whatever we reach consensus on.I am pumped-up enough to go on a rampage whenever you are ready, and there is really not much to do (per prefix links above). - On a somewhat different topic, I don't think "dams" and "reservoirs" should be in a single list, per my comment. Though, thats strictly FYI; I have no intention of doing anything in this anytime soon... ;) Rehman 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most "reservoirs and dams" (or maybe "dams and reservoirs" for that matter) lists only dams.
- This has similarities to the dams and hydroelectric plant problem. I support the "dams and reservoirs" article titles for one. What could be done for a dam/reservoir that has a single article and the same name is just put the name. For example, the Deriner Dam and reservoir could be listed as just Deriner.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I guess we could do that... Are you guys ok if I start moving all "reservoirs and dams" to "dams and reservoirs"?
Also, I have noticed the following:
- Some "list of dams" pages lists only dams, (duh). But they could be listed along with reservoirs with just an additional column or dash, like this list.
- Similar to the above, some "reservoirs" pages could list dams with just an additional column or dash.
Is it a good move to rename the few individual "dams" and "reservoirs" list to "dams and reservoirs" lists? Rehman 02:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea. So the proposed changes changes: 1) All list of dams and/or reservoirs renamed to "List of dams and reservoirs in..." 2) All reservoirs/dams with a single article or no article are listed by just their basic name. Those with both seperated by a dash. Sounds like a plan, I just want to wait for further consensus.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I have also created a separate {{Dams and Reservoirs}} template (instead of using the regional topic templates I mentioned above). May help interlinking articles and de-orphan pages. I look forward to start the restructuring. Rehman 08:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
← I proposed a merger of two big lists here. I would also like to revisit this discussion as well to establish some consensus before an overdue organizational overhaul. First, out of the articles with both dams and reservoirs in the title, we rename to "List of dams and reservoirs". Those starting with reservoir [[1]] and dam [[2]]. My rationale is not only because it sounds better to me but reservoirs are created after a dam and they are part of the dam complex. The dam is the essential structure here.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the need for consistency and can live with "List of dams and reservoirs...", although my preference would be for "List of dams..." since most reservoirs share the same name - certainly true of List of reservoirs and dams in Germany where even some the very few reservoirs mentioned are more about the dam and could be retitled. Where they don't have the same name, this could be mentioned alongside the dam link. As an aside, reservoirs may also appear in "List of lakes..." or "List of waterbodies..." --Bermicourt (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, none dams and reservoirs along the Columbia River share the same name, I think. Eg, The Dalles Dam and Lake Celilo, John Day Dam and Lake Umatilla, Grand Coulee Dam and Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. I'm not arguing against this point though, where names differ they can be pointed out, as at List of tributaries of the Columbia River. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- For some lists, work would have to be done. I think most big dam projects in the U.S. have different dam/reservoir names. Just for Washington as an example here, they have both labeled for some albeit the list needs some organization already. If all there is in the article is dam names, I agree with Bermicourt's point and the related List of dams and reservoirs article could be a redirect. Several article with just "List of dams in..." already exist.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, none dams and reservoirs along the Columbia River share the same name, I think. Eg, The Dalles Dam and Lake Celilo, John Day Dam and Lake Umatilla, Grand Coulee Dam and Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. I'm not arguing against this point though, where names differ they can be pointed out, as at List of tributaries of the Columbia River. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the need for consistency and can live with "List of dams and reservoirs...", although my preference would be for "List of dams..." since most reservoirs share the same name - certainly true of List of reservoirs and dams in Germany where even some the very few reservoirs mentioned are more about the dam and could be retitled. Where they don't have the same name, this could be mentioned alongside the dam link. As an aside, reservoirs may also appear in "List of lakes..." or "List of waterbodies..." --Bermicourt (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the next few days, I will move "List of reservoirs and..." to "List of dams and reservoirs..." if there are no objections.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Merowe Dam
Hello. I'm not sure where to mention this. I thought about adding something on the "to do" list, but wasn't sure how best to do it, so I'll post here instead. A recent NASA Earth Observatory picture of the day was on Merowe Dam, on the Nile in Sudan. I checked our page, Merowe Dam, and it appears to be written as if the dam is still under construction. From what I can tell, it is finished. I edited the lead to indicate this, but the rest of the page is written as if it is a construction project. Thought I'd post here about it. The dam appears to be one of major importance. Pfly (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yup! Looks complete. I added it to the to-do under "update". I started the to-do list with some ideas I had, there is no problem with adding other to-dos. It can help other editors including myself. As far as importance, it is on a very major river, expensive, big, has a huge reservoir and is controversial. I'd say top importance.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am currently working on Chinese development projects in Africa and stumbled upon Merowe Dam. If you have a look at the dam on Google Maps you can see that the satellite images of different zoom levels are not of the same date. The images clearly make visible the condition of the landscape north of the dam before and after flooding. Would it not be interesting to have these images in the article on the dam to see the environmental impact? What does Google Maps copyright say about using screenshots on Wikipedia? Toumingdu (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Toumingdu. Google Maps is copyrighted and screen shots can only be used under fair use. I do not believe overhead of the Merowe Dam to show inundation constitutes this. There is a [NASA image] available which is in the public domain and already used in the article. Argleton would be an example where Google Maps can be used under fair-use, being they displayed the location by accident.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dear NortyNort, thank you for the fast reply. I agree that the image could not be used under fair use. What a pity for the overall entry on the Merowe Dam, since I am convinced a before/after image would magnify the implications dams have for the environment in this particular case (cf. Aral_sea entry). Toumingdu (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. A reader can still get an idea of how the reservoir expanded the water surface as the image shows the river up and downstream. I did not know much about image copyright until I joined WP and since I have been upset with many images I could not use.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dear NortyNort, thank you for the fast reply. I agree that the image could not be used under fair use. What a pity for the overall entry on the Merowe Dam, since I am convinced a before/after image would magnify the implications dams have for the environment in this particular case (cf. Aral_sea entry). Toumingdu (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Dam articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Dam articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Grand Coulee Dam PR FAC
..its at peer review if anyone has any comments. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article is at FAC now if anyone has any comments. FAC is back-logged and the help of any editors who haven't edited the article a lot would be greatly appreciated.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id= (or worse {{arxiv|0123.4567}}|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id= and {{JSTOR|0123456789}}|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
- {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Infobox Dam layout
There is quite an attractive dam infobox layout on German Wikipedia which is similar to the {{Geobox}} ones we use for rivers, mountains, etc. What do project members think? Would the infobox experts be able to tweak the design of our infobox slightly to produce something similar? E.g. compare:
--Bermicourt (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, the old version of the Infobox Dam template looks somewhat like that. But since all infoboxes now use the {{Infobox}} template, all infoboxes now look almost the same. So AFAIK, we can't really change the style even if we like it... Rehman 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- But if you check out Zugspitze or Kaisergebirge or River Trent, they seem to be quite similar to their German counterparts, so it must be possible. It seems wrong if Wikipedia has reached a point where we can't continue to improve things. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Template duplication
On the List of dams and reservoirs in Germany there are 2 large templates. The European one based on {{Europe topic}} seems to be, in effect, a subset of the {{Dams and Reservoirs}}. Click on Portugal in both templates and you get to the same article. May I suggest we use one or the other, but not both? --Bermicourt (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say Dams and Reservoirs as it has a Europe section already.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, agree with NortyNort. I just did the same to List of dams and reservoirs in Sri Lanka. Rehman 06:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
I made a barnstar for dam-related articles. I don't know if anyone has any comments or can make up a better barnstar design. I am not that great of a graphic artist.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Enjoying the Hoover Dam picture, it actually works very well in my opinion. Shannontalk contribs 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I looked through a bunch of photos and thought it fit well.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- NortyNort, I just love the barnstar. Wishing that my edits to Mullaperiyar Dam earn me one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I looked through a bunch of photos and thought it fit well.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
CfD for Category:River regulation
There is a CfD for Category:River regulation at this link. Any editors with interest or insight are welcomed to comment.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Waterarchives.org photos on Flickr
In case you didn't know, there is a very nice collection of c. 1000 Commons-compatible (CC-BY-SA-2.0) historical photos of US dams on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waterarchives/. GregorB (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Flag icons in infoboxes
I made a proposal to use a bot to replace flag icons in dams infoboxes with country names. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments at the relevant template's talk page here. Beagel (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
River Diagrams
I added a diagram using WP:RDT to Columbia River Treaty that shows the flow of water between treaty nations and hopefully helps to explain the point of the treaty. It could be expanded to the whole List of dams in the Columbia River watershed and other complicated waterways. Vagary (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
dams by year of completion category?
I notice that dams are inconsistently categorized by year: some are in, e.g. Category:1914 establishments, and others are in, e.g., Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1914. Imo the 2nd makes more sense, because a dam is more like a "structure" that was built, rather than something like an organization that was "established". But to go further, should we have dam-specific year-of-completion subcategories, analogous to Category:Bridges completed in 1914 and Category:Tunnels completed in 1914, such as Category:Dams completed in 1914? --Delirium (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that is a good idea. Over the past few years the amount of dam articles has increased dramatically and I'm sure we'd have a dam for every year since around the 1920's. They would be helpful to readers as they can navigate dams built during certain periods which has engineering and political connotations. I think the year the dam is complete is the year the actual dam structure is finished and the reservoir filled. Sometimes the year of a power plant being completed and operational is used. This is often a year or more after the dam is finished.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. If I understand you correctly, the Caniapiscau Reservoir (I'm currently translating the French version) would be placed in Category:Dams completed in 1984, since the drawdowns began on January 18, 1984, even if the reservoir was technically operational on July 25, 1982 when it reached its minimum operating level? Bouchecl (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I would lean towards using 1982 in that case, as the structural completion date when it became a dam impounding a reservoir. But my preference isn't strong. There's a somewhat similar question with when buildings are completed, especially office buildings, since sometimes a completed building doesn't have its "grand opening" to tenants until a year or two later, due to conditions in the leasing market. I believe in those instances the category is supposed to use the date the building was completed to the point of being inhabitable, rather than the later official opening, but we are probably not consistent with that across Wikipedia. I am not too worried about a +/- few years myself, though it would be good to pick something consistent. --Delirium (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- The year the dam was inaugurated, if available, should work best. That is usually in the middle or at the end of the reservoir filling period and well before the full power plant commissioning. For the Caniapiscau, I agree with 1982.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the consensus on this discussion is, but I'll start on the categorizing. Shannºn 03:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The year the dam was inaugurated, if available, should work best. That is usually in the middle or at the end of the reservoir filling period and well before the full power plant commissioning. For the Caniapiscau, I agree with 1982.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I would lean towards using 1982 in that case, as the structural completion date when it became a dam impounding a reservoir. But my preference isn't strong. There's a somewhat similar question with when buildings are completed, especially office buildings, since sometimes a completed building doesn't have its "grand opening" to tenants until a year or two later, due to conditions in the leasing market. I believe in those instances the category is supposed to use the date the building was completed to the point of being inhabitable, rather than the later official opening, but we are probably not consistent with that across Wikipedia. I am not too worried about a +/- few years myself, though it would be good to pick something consistent. --Delirium (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. If I understand you correctly, the Caniapiscau Reservoir (I'm currently translating the French version) would be placed in Category:Dams completed in 1984, since the drawdowns began on January 18, 1984, even if the reservoir was technically operational on July 25, 1982 when it reached its minimum operating level? Bouchecl (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
confusion between dams and reservoir in categories
In some categorizing work I've been doing for the project recently, I noticed that nearly half the articles in Category:Dams in California are actually articles about reservoirs. I don't think these should be included in there (isn't there a Category:Reservoirs in California?) not to mention it gave me a really hard time looking for the ones that actually pointed to dams. I noticed this problem replete in many other existing categories as well (though California is one of the worst).
I think we should carry out some sort of sweep, making sure dams are categorized as dams and reservoirs are catted as reservoirs. Because the current system is sort of a mess. Shannºn 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Difficult issue. I think the root of the problem is that in many cases there is not really enough information to warrant two separate articles, one on the dam and another on the reservoir. So we end up with one article, either titled "X reservoir" or "X dam", but often covering both subjects in the article body. Not entirely sure what to do about these. --Delirium (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've come across this dilemma when translating German articles. They have a nifty way round it: the word Talsperre means the dam and its associated reservoir. We don't have anything like that. I normally name the article "Foo Dam" and redirect "Foo Reservoir" to it, unless the reservoir has a separate name or is a famous lake in its own right. The articles are categorized under "Category:Dams in xxx" and the redirects under "Category:Reservoirs in xxx". --Bermicourt (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys and gals. I have a question. The above conversation makes sense to me. We end up with "reservoir" articles in the "dam" category, and that's a small problem. There seems to be a consensus that you're going to create "dam" redirect pages, and categorize the redirect pages, so it all looks smooth. I would have chosen a different way to do it, but, you know, I'm not argumentative, I'm happy to go along with it.
But for example on Lower Two Medicine Lake, we've ended up with the category "Dams completed in 1967" applied to the redirect page, the category "United States Bureau of Indian Affairs dams" still applied to the reservoir page, and the category "Dams in Montana" disappeared entirely. This is more confusing to me. Is that really the intended result? Broadly applying cats to redirect pages is not a standard solution, and you may have problems down the road with well-meaning editors coming along and un-doing what you're doing. How do you intend to communicate this solution to everybody who might ever edit a dam or reservoir article? Did you really come to a consensus? These are honest questions and I approach this with good humor & good faith. --Lockley (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh - sorry about that, I remember editing the article this morning. My proposal is that any categories ending with "dam" be applied to articles/redirects ending with "dam", and vice versa with "reservoir" or "lake". I'll go and fix it. Shannºn 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hamthuan-Dami Hydroelectric Power Station
There is a discussion about the correct name of the Hamthuan-Dami Hydroelectric Power Station article. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
A category for dams by river?
Shyamsunder recently created Category:Dams by river. While I think it is good to have dams categorized by river, this can be accomplished by placing them under that river's category. I feel this may be a case of over-categorization. Please see my conversation on User_talk:Shyamsunder. If these categories do go forward it should at least be "Dams on <RIVER>" instead of "Dams across <RIVER>". Please provide thoughts. Thank you.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ever increasing number of dams on rivers is a serious issue. This category is useful for research and information. I do not think it is over categorisation. Lokk at categories like Bridges by river and others. Please feel free to get the names changed to "dams on" for consistency.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well looking at Category:Crossings_of_the_Mississippi_River, cats should be "Dams on the <RIVER>". I will submit a category name change. Discussion here.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ever increasing number of dams on rivers is a serious issue. This category is useful for research and information. I do not think it is over categorisation. Lokk at categories like Bridges by river and others. Please feel free to get the names changed to "dams on" for consistency.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Kajaki Dam over what is a more suitable image for the infobox. Please take the time to comment and provide thoughts so there can be a consensus and no disruptive editing. Thank you.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Notability
Hello! I am unable to find out any established notability criteria of dams to gauge whether an article should be kept or deleted. Where can i find it? Can someone weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanka Sagar if there is no criteria established? I suppose regular members of this project could comment on it looking at its size. Also, does this project not have a deletion sorting list? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Dharmadhyaksha. There is no set notability for dams because the threshold is pretty low. Most dams are just notable themselves. I think I have seen only one dam article deleted and it was because there was no real sources and it was very small and really just didn't need an article. This article is notable; the dam has set purpose, isn't small but isn't large and is covered in sourcing. I commented on the AfD. Thanks!--NortyNort (Holla) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks NortyNort for the explanation. I also assumed that most of the dams are just notable. But i thought maybe there is some guideline based on size or area served or such. But case to case analysis sounds good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Glad I could help.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjara_Damjust states that"In 2016, the reservoir completely dried up, after 4 years of no rainfall.[2]"
- No problem. Glad I could help.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- A picture of the dry mud bed was recently shown on a British newspaper as an advert for Global warming but India has had three years of floods so which is right and what level of water extraction was the reservoir subject to?
- Thanks NortyNort for the explanation. I also assumed that most of the dams are just notable. But i thought maybe there is some guideline based on size or area served or such. But case to case analysis sounds good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Weatherlawyer (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
non-RM name discussion re Stave Falls Dam and Powerhouse
- Stave Falls Dam and Powerhouse. There's two dams, the other being the Blind Slough Dam. See Talk:Stave_Falls_Dam_and_Powerhouse#name_issue.3B_suggested_RM_or_reasons_for_one on that and related issues.Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was on a damming spree when I noticed this. And it seems to have been created by me billions of years ago. Do we really need it? Nuke it? We could use {{World topic|prefix=List of dams and reservoirs in}}. The latter template also allows some style modifications. Or, depending on consensus, we could even nuke the use of this template altogether; it's quite rare for a reader to switch between lists of dams and reservoirs over different countries. Rehman 01:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is used in 31 articles and works although I can't judge how much use it gets. I think the big problem with the template is just all the red links which is another problem in itself. I am not compelled to get rid of it all-together though.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguating dam articles
Hi. Gut feeling says that this move by me is wrong. Should it be Canyon Dam, United States or Canyon Dam, Texas (with a comma) instead? I followed what was done at Victoria Dam, but reading WP:MOSDAB buckled up my thoughts... Is there a fixed rule anywhere? I think the comma way is the right way to go, since the dams are effectively geographic locations. Regards, Rehman 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is one in both the U.S. states of Texas and California as well, so I moved it to Canyon Dam (Texas), added hatnotes and expanded the dab article. Usually when there is more than two of the same name I create a dab page with a simple hatnote.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you think such DABed dam articles should have the suffix after the comma, or within parenthesis? Rehman 23:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Parentheses seems to be the prevailing style. I can see an argument for the comma approach, but comma disambig seems to be used only for something more like "localities": cities, towns, municipalities, neighborhoods, etc. Dams to me seem more like "landmarks" or "features", which are typically disambiguated with parentheses. Example: Old Town Hall (Silkeborg) vs. Old Town Hall (Bratislava). --Delirium (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you think such DABed dam articles should have the suffix after the comma, or within parenthesis? Rehman 23:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
adding category to California dams list
given the reoccurring droughts it would be useful to know the reservoir levels below which no storage can be released and no hydropower can be generated for example Lake Shasta dead pools at 840 feet currently about 936feetBdhnign (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- This would be an interesting statistic and I guess it would be possible to find for some of the larger reservoirs (e.g. Shasta, New Melones, Folsom) especially the Bureau of Reclamation ones, though for most of the mid sized and smaller lakes I doubt it would be possible. There is a list here of the dead pool levels of some of the bigger reservoirs, but again, there's only about 60 on here, compared with... probably a lot more on List of dams and reservoirs of California. Shannon 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks. This might interest you. Rehman 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories for discussion
Please see my proposal to rename Category:Dam disasters and its sub cats here. Opinions and comments welcome.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Water-technology blacklisted
www.water-technology.net was blacklisted recently because of a spammer. It is one of the more valuable sources for dam and hydropower articles and is heavily used. I requested its removal from the black list. Feel free to comment.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Category query
Are dams established like other structures? Should Australian dams be placed in the xxxx establishments in Australia category where xxxx is the the year the dam was completed? If not, why not?- Shiftchange (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. I have rarely done it because I forget, to be honest. Thanks for reminding me!--NortyNort (Holla) 14:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was surprised by your answer as none of the featured articles and all of the good articles I checked within this WikiProject are not within that category structure. I will continue to add it to articles on Australian dams. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is separate from Category:Dams by year of completion correct? Shannon 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I was after confirmation that edits like this are correct. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is separate from Category:Dams by year of completion correct? Shannon 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was surprised by your answer as none of the featured articles and all of the good articles I checked within this WikiProject are not within that category structure. I will continue to add it to articles on Australian dams. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Bili-Bili Dam for a DYK?
With a little assistance from a knowledgeable editor, Bili-Bili Dam might be expanded into a DYK. -- Djembayz (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can do some work on it over the weekend, it could use an infobox and some expansion, of course. It needs a good hook though as most info in the article is rather expected or typical.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Dams controversies
Please see the CfD discussion for Category:Dam controversies here. Comments and insight welcome.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Units of volume
I ran into the article Jayakwadi Dam, which before I changed it, said it had a capacity of 2,909 Mm3. According to Litre#SI prefixes applied to the litre, that unit is cubic megametres or zettalitres (1021 L). According to my math, that's enough to raise the earth's sea level about 6 km, but I don't regularly do math more complex than figuring a tip. I changed the units in the article to MCM (which I think is million cubic meters) based on the source. I see that other dam articles use Mm3 in ways that look wrong to me, but I don't want to start making changes without an engineer or the like checking my thinking. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I played with Wolfram Alpha and I was pretty far off. It would cover the earth about 3,500 kilometers deep. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the editor meant MCM which is commonly given in sources as a unit of volume to avoid all those zeroes, especially Indian sources. Personally, I like spelling out the volume in m3, no matter how large. I don't like scientific notation either. I don't believe the convert template uses MCM either. Maybe a bot can change all the Mm3 to MCM for us.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hazard potential
By this query I found out that the words "hazard potential" occur in about 120 articles on dams, but almost all of them are about South African dams. And the rankings given appear to be unsourced. What about this? Apdency (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hiram M. Chittenden Locks listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hiram M. Chittenden Locks to be moved to Ballard Locks. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Hi folks. Back in June, I have uploaded the above image thinking that it was the Badush Dam. But User:Jurryaany was nice enough to email to tell me that it isn't, which is true. I need help, again, in identifying what this aerial photo of a dam is... I have taken this image in June, during my flight from Dubai to New York City. Here are the clues:
- Taken on 4 July 2012, from Dubai to New York City, on an Airbus A380 (to give you a sense of speed). I have more pictures taken in the series:
- The photo of the unknown dam was taken 12:44:14
- 17 seconds later, I captured Mosul Dam taken at at 12:44:31
- Much further down the flight path, I took Batman Dam at 12:59, and
- Seyrantepe Dam at 13:09
Can someone help me please? I think my search area was wrong. Rehman 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, here's the map I sent along with my message to User:Rehman to aid with the identification: [4] Jurryaany (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jurryaany, we're unable to open the map as it is not public. Cheers, Rehman 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, should be fixed now, thanks for the heads-up, User:Rehman Jurryaany (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's the Mosul regulator dam downstream of the main dam. It's a 62 MW R-o-R. It does not have its own article and just has a brief mention in the lead of the Mosul Dam article. It's a little known dam in Iraq and doesn't get much attention compared to its big brother.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, should be fixed now, thanks for the heads-up, User:Rehman Jurryaany (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jurryaany, we're unable to open the map as it is not public. Cheers, Rehman 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:TransCanada Corporation dams
Category:TransCanada Corporation dams, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:TransCanada Corporation. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:PPL Montana dams
Category:PPL Montana dams, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:NorthWestern Corporation dams. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Template:Spandarian HPP sandbox listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Spandarian HPP sandbox to be moved to User:Taguhi_sinanyan/sandbox2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Draft:Spandarian HPP listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Draft:Spandarian HPP to be moved to User:Taguhi_sinanyan/sandbox2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Spandaryan Hydro Power Plant listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Spandaryan Hydro Power Plant to be moved to User:Taguhi_sinanyan/sandbox2. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Vorotan Complex listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vorotan Complex to be moved to Vorotan Cascade. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Hi folks. Your input on this merger is appreciated. Rehman 13:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Pandoh Dam listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pandoh Dam to be moved to Dehar Hydroelectric Project. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Natural vs man-made dams
I have been having problems for years regarding these two types of dams since everyone seems to have their own biased POV about natural dams. I originally rose this issue on Talk:List of dams and reservoirs in Canada in 2008 but with no success. I mean just because something was not made by man does not mean it should be left out. That's quite illogical. Whether it's natural or not it's still a dam. Natural dam is covered in the dam article which also includes man-made dams. User:Skookum1's argument that The Barrier is not really a dam is also illogical. His view is that it's not a dam simply because it's made of rock. What can I say about this? Well so are many man-made dams; lots are made of concrete, which consists of construction aggregate. I also find User:Bearcat's reasoning illogical. He clearly says The Barrier would be a completely appropriate addition to a list of geographic features, which is fine (since it is a geographic feature) but it should still be with dams despite the fact that it wasn't created the same way and doesn't serve the same purpose as with hydroelectric and water/flood control/storage dams. It's a completely biased point of view. This is supported by Skookum1's statement "no, it's not because natural dam articles weren't written, it's because the people who wrote all those articles were thinking of man-made dams only", which explains why this whole system is concentrated on man-made dams only. I also added The Barrier in Category:Dams in Canada since it's a natural dam in the Canadian province of British Columbia but Skookum1 undid my edit (see here) because it's not a man-made dam. Just to make things clear I'm not just referring to The Barrier I'm talking about other notable natural dams as well. I'm representing a fair, proportionate view on this issue but there is always these biased users who are against including natural dams in dam lists and categories. There is also no need to split them into a second list at this time, especially since there appears to be only a few articles about natural dams. For a similar issue, see List of earthquakes in Canada. Volcanoguy 02:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know the dam categories were only limited to man-made dams. I think of the Usoi Dam which is included in a country dam category but not on the List of tallest dams in the world, which I understand. I am generally liberal with categorization but I think a dam is a dam. Our own definition is "A dam is a barrier that impounds water or underground streams." If a reader were interested in dams in BC, having The Barrier in that category might help them. In lists it is important to have a clear delineation between natural and man-made dams but categories should serve to group them together.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- @NortyNort: Thanks for your kind response. Skookum1 could have been wrong about the categorization since I was aware of Usoi Dam being included in a country dam category at the time of the discussion. He told me the issue for The Barrier's inclusion was because of categorization, which I didn't understand at the time of the discussion and I still don't today. Category:Dams in Canada is a subcategory of Category:Dams by country, Category:Buildings and structures in Canada and Category:Water in Canada. The Barrier is certainly a structure so it definitely belongs in the country dam category. The reason why I didn't readd that category in The Barrier article is because I didn't want to start another edit war over it. But since Skookum1 is now blocked for disruptive editing I might as well add it back in the article. If it happens again I will be sure to come up with stronger points for its inclusion. Volcanoguy 10:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- What is the reason for natural dams not being included in the List of tallest dams in the world? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about; man-made dams are included but natural dams are dropped. In my view if there is a list of dams all dam types should be included because like you said if a reader were interested in tallest dams in the world, having natural dams in that list might help them. If they were to be included The Barrier would also make it in that list since it has a height of 800 ft. Volcanoguy 10:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- If someone wants to add a separate list of natural dams in there, I don't mind. Tallest dam generally refers to man-made (maybe it's a pride or amazement thing).--NortyNort (Holla) 12:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy and NortyNort: I don't want to be overly rigid about this, but are there any sources supporting the fact that The Barrier is a "
man-madenatural dam", with one spillway? The BC Geographical Names website calls this thing a cliff. Need I remind everybody that Wikipedia frowns upon original research? Bouchecl (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy and NortyNort: I don't want to be overly rigid about this, but are there any sources supporting the fact that The Barrier is a "
- If someone wants to add a separate list of natural dams in there, I don't mind. Tallest dam generally refers to man-made (maybe it's a pride or amazement thing).--NortyNort (Holla) 12:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- What is the reason for natural dams not being included in the List of tallest dams in the world? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about; man-made dams are included but natural dams are dropped. In my view if there is a list of dams all dam types should be included because like you said if a reader were interested in tallest dams in the world, having natural dams in that list might help them. If they were to be included The Barrier would also make it in that list since it has a height of 800 ft. Volcanoguy 10:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @NortyNort: Thanks for your kind response. Skookum1 could have been wrong about the categorization since I was aware of Usoi Dam being included in a country dam category at the time of the discussion. He told me the issue for The Barrier's inclusion was because of categorization, which I didn't understand at the time of the discussion and I still don't today. Category:Dams in Canada is a subcategory of Category:Dams by country, Category:Buildings and structures in Canada and Category:Water in Canada. The Barrier is certainly a structure so it definitely belongs in the country dam category. The reason why I didn't readd that category in The Barrier article is because I didn't want to start another edit war over it. But since Skookum1 is now blocked for disruptive editing I might as well add it back in the article. If it happens again I will be sure to come up with stronger points for its inclusion. Volcanoguy 10:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with Skookum on this one. the definition of a man-made dam is quite clear, but the definition of a natural dam is quite difficult. I think the idea of a "dam" is something intentionally made to block water. Religious or mythical theories aside, you can't really determine that Nature intended to make a dam at a particular spot. So you have to go with the topological meaning of a dam, which is a wall that holds water at a higher elevation on one side than the other. Usoi Dam certainly fits this definition, so does The Barrier. However along the same lines the Carson Range in Nevada counts as a dam, with Lake Tahoe (elevation 6225') on one side and the Carson Valley (4600') on the other. Hell, so does the Niagara Escarpment separating Lake Erie (569') and Lake Ontario (243') with the Niagara Falls in between. Or even the Caucasus, separating the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, 92 feet lower. We don't see features like these mentioned as "natural dams" very often, since you could technically stretch the definition to almost anything.
- The best way to define a natural "dam" is geologic origin, but even that is a vague definition. What we consider "natural dams" are created by sudden events (on a geological timescale) such as lava flows and landslides, not million year processes like uplift or faulting. However, there's no way to create a hard definition. A fast-moving landslide can create a dam in minutes, but slow moving creep could also take 1,000 years to block a river.
- Lastly there's the question of temporality. Natural dams tend to collapse when they overflow and that usually happens within a few weeks or months. Those that last are quite rare and more often than not are simply considered part of the landscape (e.g. Moraine-dammed lake).
- P.S. Do beaver dams count as well?
- I would base a natural dam off its origin. Simply put, there was a valley and nature dammed it up.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bouchecl take a look at the BC Geographical Names website again. It says "This is a natural volcanic dam which retains the Garibaldi Lake system." But yes it does form a cliff. According to topographic maps there appears to be only one outlet and that is Rubble Creek.
- I would base a natural dam off its origin. Simply put, there was a valley and nature dammed it up.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Do beaver dams count as well?
- Shannon1 what really matters is what reliable sources say, not what you or anyone else thinks is a natural dam. According to WP:OR, content on Wikipedia is supposed to be supported by reliable, published sources. Are there any reliable sources that describe the Niagara Escarpment, Carson Range, etc as natural dams? If so I don't have a problem with them being described as natural dams. I'm quite open-minded on this issue. Who says they are not mentioned as natural dams very often? According to my Collins Gem English Dictionary, a dam can be something as simple as a "barrier to hold back flow of waters; water so collected –vt. hold with or as with dam (-mm-)". So yes the definition of a dam can be stretched to more than just man-made structures.
- Not all natural dams tend to collapse when they overflow, in fact they can exist for hundreds or thousands of years afterwards. Take The Barrier for example. It formed about 10,000 years ago when lava flowed into a valley then pounded and cooled against glacial ice. Later, water from creeks and glaciers pounded behind The Barrier to form Garibaldi Lake, both of which still exist to this day. The longevity of natural dams depends on the geology and how they were formed. Even if they are short-lived why does that matter? If it was a barrier that held back water temporarily or permanently it was still a dam. Are there any notable beaver dams that require articles? Probably not so that is out of the question. Volcanoguy 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bouchecl, does a dam need a spillway to be classified as a dam? If a lava dam overflows and water finds a channel over the front or side, wouldn't that be classified as a spillway? The crest of many dams and weirs is the spillway.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- @NortyNort: Using the {{Infobox dam}} for The Barrier is problematic. By using it, we imply that the flows of Garibaldi Lake are released downstream by a "spillway", but we define spillway as "a structure used to provide the controlled release of flows from a dam or levee". In this case, the flows are released by an emissary (hydraulics), as they are "uncontrolled", as stated in the infobox. It seems to me that controlling of flows of water is a defining feature of a dam system and as such, The Barrier should not be considered as a dam. Bouchecl (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bouchecl, does a dam need a spillway to be classified as a dam? If a lava dam overflows and water finds a channel over the front or side, wouldn't that be classified as a spillway? The crest of many dams and weirs is the spillway.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not all natural dams tend to collapse when they overflow, in fact they can exist for hundreds or thousands of years afterwards. Take The Barrier for example. It formed about 10,000 years ago when lava flowed into a valley then pounded and cooled against glacial ice. Later, water from creeks and glaciers pounded behind The Barrier to form Garibaldi Lake, both of which still exist to this day. The longevity of natural dams depends on the geology and how they were formed. Even if they are short-lived why does that matter? If it was a barrier that held back water temporarily or permanently it was still a dam. Are there any notable beaver dams that require articles? Probably not so that is out of the question. Volcanoguy 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect image on Westville Lake (Massachusetts) listing
The image on the Westville Lake page is not of Westville Lake, Dam and Rec Area - it is of the East Brimfield, MA dam, 5 miles to the NW/W. The Route 20 causeway that splits the waterway is clearly visible across the top and left of the image.
Hi. Your input here is appreciated. Rehman 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Improving the Dam Removal page
Hello,
I am a student at the University of Southern California and would like to improve the page on Dam Removal as part of my Ecological Factors of Design class. The current article has numerous problems and consists mainly of a long listing of over 15 dams in the United States that have been removed or are being considered for removal. I would like to add more general information on why dams are removed for various economic and environmental reasons. The introduction to the article has only two sentences on these reasons before jumping into a larger paragraph about dam failures. The section on the Purposes and effects of dams spends a lot of time talking about the impact dams have on fish species. While that is an important and valid concern, there are more varied ecological impacts than just fish. Additionally, every example is of a United States river and there are no international rivers talked about. I would like to add a more varied, global perspective on dam removal and include a few examples from countries other than the US. What do you all think of that plan?
Ben banet (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. The page could definitely use expansion, and your suggestions are good ones. It would be especially useful to make sure the page covers dam removal in general, rather than only dam removal in the United States. The only thing I'd be a little bit careful of is making sure the part on reasons for dam removal keeps the tone of an encyclopedia article, not slipping into more of an advocacy-piece style. (Don't worry too much about that, just re-read whatever you write to make sure it doesn't sound like a "why dams should be removed" essay.) Thanks in advance for your contributions; looking forward to seeing the new-and-improved article! --Delirium (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)