Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oroville Dam crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Oroville Dam crisis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Anyone want another reference The Guardian UK -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There was also a river bypass that the dam was built with. It was damaged extensively in 2009 and has never been used since.
Not sure if this should be added, but in researching any catastrophe, all significant factors should be disclosed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:509F:DC00:D841:AC05:716C:4D4C ( talk) 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are links: DWR planning study on worrisome river valves blamed in 2009 Oroville Dam accident http://www.orovillemr.com/general-news/20120912/dwr-planning-study-on-worrisome-river-valves-blamed-in-2009-oroville-dam-accident Oroville Dam River Outlet Diversion Tunnel No. 2 http://www.srco.com/index.php?id=85 Foolssanma ( talk) 16:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.archive.org/stream/zh9californiastatew2003calirich/zh9californiastatew2003calirich_djvu.txt There has been works on the river outlet in 2014/15 resulting in "half-capacity was enough to meet cold water requirements" https://mavensnotebook.com/2016/06/07/california-water-commission-update-on-state-water-project-operations-and-issues/ Foolssanma ( talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an additional photo of the damaged spillway on Wikimapia available here. It's probably CC-BY-SA. The Wikimapia view of the location for the 2017 Spillway Failure is here, including grid coordinates. - tucoxn\ talk 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit request: The significance of the *entire* California National Guard being placed on alert status bears mentioning somewhere in this article. Per a statement from Adjutant General David S. Baldwin quoted by the LA Times ( http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-live-updates-oroville-dam-all-23-000-california-national-guard-1486988371-htmlstory.html), the total forces of the California National Guard have not been on alert status since the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. MilesFrmOrdnary ( talk) 21:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Magnolia677: Re: my edit and your revert. Yes, I know it's already there, but more scattered and hard to follow. In particular, the interactions between the various events are hard to divine from the current text. I thought a more straightforward summary was needed, and this seemed the best place to insert it. (I'm also limited by the fact that, as a frequently updated current event, I can't take too long editing or I get conflicts. That rush is why I didn't insert all the citations yet; they're elsewhere in the article and can be added piecemeal.) Could you suggest a better place (or reconsider?) Thank you! 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As others have noted, this discussion thread at metabunk.org is quite useful.
One good source I found there is Bulletin No. 200: California State Water Project Volume III: Storage Facilities (PDF) (Report). State of California Department of Water Resources. November 1974. Pages 63–140 have a lot of original design information on the Oroville dam. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Magnolia677: has reverted many of my additions to this article. I would like other editors to look at this diff and restore it. Magnolia has cn tagged the 55000 cubic foot number even though it is in the Kasler source just cited. The diff also identifies the "wall" as a "weir". It more strongly ties the fear is the collapse of the weir rather than the entire auxiliary spillway. See use of "weir" at at thumb|center|Chute Spillway. A "30-ft wall of water" is not good terminology. "Wall"s are high but they are not usually thick. The wall will not be 30-ft high as it flows down the Feather River. Thee acre-feet number is WP:CALC. Glrx ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DISASTER, the word "crisis" shouldnever be used in a case like this article:
Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like. ... Only use the word crisis when it meets the definition, such as a constitutional crisis.
I suggest the title 2017 Oroville Dam overflow. AHeneen ( talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The word "crisis" is also very, if not more, dramatic. Words like "disaster" and "crisis" are vague and subjective and should be avoided when possible. While the spillway failures will result in a lot of danger over the next few months, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article can be renamed if necessary. However, the fact that there are effects after or other than the event mentioned in the title does not make it a bad title. If it did then there would be articles for "1906 San Francisco disaster" for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which caused a fire that destroyed the city, or "2011 Japan crisis" for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, when the resulting nuclear meltdown was also a major resulting event and there was a significant effect on Japan's economy afterwards.
I couldn't find any discussion about the policy above regarding the word "crisis". The given definition of "crisis" renders other parts of the WP:DISASTER policy irrelevant. I think that the intention was that "crisis" should only be used when it is part of a generally-used phrase, such as "constitutional crisis". More weight should be given to the intention of the WP:DISASTER policy, which is to use a more descriptive title when possible. Another policy to consider is
WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.
AHeneen (
talk) 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm most concerned w/noting that it was the spillways that failed, not the dam. I'd prefer 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failures or 2017 Oroville Dam spillway crisis. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the section boundaries in an attempt to make this clearer. What I would like to do now is to remove the duplication from:
But that will involve the deletion of some text! So I am coming here first.
If anyone wants to perform the edit- please do. Otherwise I will just comment out some of the duplicates so they can be reintroduced if I have got it wrong. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
References
100K
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please undo Special:Diff/765869112 which introduced the section heading "Risk of Dam Collapse". A significant ongoing problem has been the confusion between a spillway collapse and a dam collapse. The former is a possibility, would devastate Oroville and cause a major flood downstream. The latter would be cataclysmic, but is pretty much impossible, because of the large knob of bedrock between the spillways and the dam. The difference is between 30 ft of the reservoir lost and ≈770 ft. Both bad, but a very big difference. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 02:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (Ping @ Magnolia677:, whose edit this is.)
(You're welcome to choose an alternative title, of course, like "Risk of spillway collapse". 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC))
I see this article references http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oroville-Dam-spillway-hole-erosion-water-reservoir-10920358.php a few times but actually links to http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article131579999.html which seems to be a different issue. I also plan to kick this article over to Wikipedia:Did you know, so all the "citation needed"s will need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this is a very nice graphic detailing the situation. However, images should not be used to convey text per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The main reasons are that text in images can't be searched and—more importantly—can't be read by software for the visually impaired, plus the large image is awkward on mobile displays. The individual images can be used to illustrate some of the events (labels are ok in the image, but descriptions should be a caption and not part of the image), but the entire chart is overkill. I would have placed a cleanup tag in the section, but since the DYK nomination has passed, I decided to just remove the image to here so that is doesn't affect the posting of the DYK.
Also, the description of the 2005 proposal is misleading/inaccurate. The federal government didn't deny the request per se. During a re-licensing procedure, some environmental groups proposed that the federal government require the state to line the emergency spillway with concrete as a condition of renewing the license. The federal government noted that the existing spillway met existing guidelines and therefore approved the license. See this article. So it's not that the proposal was rejected by federal regulators, but that their guidelines were satisfied by the existing structure and they had no valid reason to deny a renewal. For fairness and to satisfy due process of law, practically all licensing/permitting and contracting by government agencies is based on predetermined criteria. Even if "rejected" is technically correct, it is a misleading term in this situation. AHeneen ( talk) 09:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Under "2005: Upgrade proposal rejected": there was no credible costs estimate for armoring the spillway. Under "Repairs made": Rocks were not placed "under" the emergency spillway; they were placed downstream of the emergency spillway weir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.89.109 ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
=== Avoid entering textual information as images === {{shortcut|MOS:TEXTASIMAGES}} Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]] tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.
Is that the that the text you are quoting as an authority?
The text says almost always.
I appreciate the concern, but in an on-going current situation I think it is a reasonable compromise to include the informative images until we have something better. I won't be difficult to knock up an equivalent svg but will take some time. You admit the text is technically correct, and our format allows the use of alt text to help screen readers WP:ALTIMG, can I suggest that is the interim solution. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
|upright=
not |px=
(see
MOS:IMGSIZE and
WP:IMGSIZE) and even in the exceptional case where px is used, the image shouldn't be larger than 500x400.
AHeneen (
talk) 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've redistributed several images throughout the article and added a decent amount of context to the article. After all that, I suggest breaking up the images individually. Using this revision of the article, I suggest:
In my opinion, it's better to use real images of the situation. I should mention that the creator of the infographic did a good job, I hope my comments aren't interpreted harshly. AHeneen ( talk) 09:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|-
|colspan=3|<center>[[File:Oroville dam infographic feb 14.bottom.png|800px]]</center>
|-
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
ClemRutter ( talk) 18:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a version with changes to the labels I suggested. I had a hard time trying to place the "emergency spillway" label in a way that doesn't create too much visual clutter, eventually settling on an offset, two line label. This doesn't easily allow the addition of the road, but I'm now thinking that may not be needed. The "Feather River" doesn't look quite as good as the original file. I am using Inkscape and don't know how to easily create text aligned on a curve as the version above. Also, after uploading the file to Commons, the font appeared different than it does in Inkscape, so I uploaded a PNG version which appears as the file does in Inkscape. However, on this page, the images appear identical. The font for the labels is DejaVu Sans, bold, 11pt, except "Feather River" and "Lake Oroville" which are DejaVu Sans, normal (not bold), 14pt. I increased the width of the stroke of the edges of the emergency spillway to 1.5 so it is more visible and added a slim black border on the image. It is displayed here at close to the standard thumb size (220px). AHeneen ( talk) 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
@
Shannon1: Please do not convert the text to curves. Wikipedia uses rsvg
to convert SVG files to the PNG bitmaps that are actually displayed in the article. rsvg
has many limitations such as not using some common proprietary fonts. The workaround is to use the available fonts. rsvg
does not do text on a path, so the workaround is to use ordinary text (possibly rotated). The image will be uglier, but it simplifies translation.
Glrx (
talk) 19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
rsvg
does not claim to do alignment-baseline
: see
File:SVG Test TextAlign.svg. Some browsers do and other browsers don't. That little quirk is a huge monkey wrench for compatibility. Browsers also lie about feature#Text
and may not use a consistent baseline. Well, this problem may also result from errors in particular font definitions; it's not exactly clear where all the problems arise, but the same SVG file can produce significantly different images. It can be especially irksome in maps:
File:StrekenProvincieUtrecht1.svg (SVG 1.1 with default alignment-baseline
).I made suggestions above regarding the placement of images in the article, but there was never much discussion about it. I made a test edit to the article with a proposed layout of media on the article. Check out this revision (a test edit which I've reverted). It removes the infographic, but keeps a couple of the useful images. A major difficulty is trying to place the images so that they don't stack on top of each other or cause other major visual/formatting clutter. I added a gallery which is not always appropriate, but this is a case where I believe one is appropriate. I think 1-2 other images of emergency repairs would be useful to add to the gallery for comprehension, but the manual of style guidelines for image galleries needs to be kept in mind.
The DWR has a great photogallery of the event with lots of quality, high-resolution images. I encourage others to find images of the emergency repairs that would work great in this article. You can't right click on the website and can't download images without 1) creating a free account and 2) requesting permission to download an image (I sent the message "Hello, I would like to use this image for Wikipedia" and was given permission to download all of the DWR's photos). The great thing is that the images are all public domain (they're tagged as such in the photogallery and see also the Commons template commons:Template:PD-CAGov)!!
The DWR also has a YouTube channel with several aerial views of the incident (also public domain). I included a placeholder video in the proposed layout. One of the DWR YouTube videos can be downloaded and added to Commons.
Please browse the DWR photogallery and YouTube videos to suggest which would be best or most appropriate for this article if you like the proposed layout. AHeneen ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I am hoping to put this conversation into a tutorial booklet later, so can I ask some basic questions
style
attribute. The poor implementation may be due to poor tools.
Glrx (
talk) 19:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
rsvg
. This suggests a that a help sheet on how to use svg will have sections: one
rsvg
are sometimes brought up (e.g., don't use small font sizes). More diffuse are some significant problems with both rsvg
and the Wikimedia software that serves the bitmap images; that exists in bug lists on Phabricator and Bugzilla and the source code repositories. Just about everybody wants rsvg
to do text on a path (
Phabricator:T11420) and better text alignment, but I don't think that has happened. In addition, there are once-in-a-while discussions about replacing rsvg
or directly serving SVG rather than generated PNG bitmaps. Directly serving SVG raises issues that browser SVG support varies; some SVG files are huge compared to the PNG bitmap. More diffuse are the various problems that Adobe Illustrator (e.g., extensions and XML entities), Inkscape (e.g., verbose, little inheritance, non-standard SVG entities, and illegal names), and other SVG applications (e.g., definitions after use) present. Even then, the advice can be fragmented. Some editors recommend converting text to curves to avoid font rendering problems (quick and dirty solution), but that bloats the SVG file and hinders translation (translation has another huge set of headaches). Some editors propose uploading dual SVG/PNG files at Commons or even dual SVG versions, but that creates a copy maintenance headache.
Glrx (
talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the {{
MOS|infographic|date=February 2017}}
notice near the bottom of the article to {{
MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images|date=February 2017}}
, which will appear as
{{
MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images}}
That helps clarify what the issue is. Thank you!
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 10:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be useful to explain that the concrete spillway can only be used when the lake is at a certain level (DWR says 817 feet, but one of your sources list 813.6 feet). At this point, the lake level is below the release gates. In any case, this is an important piece of data because if the level is below that figure (whatever it is), then the only way to drop the level any farther is through (1) the power station and (2) the bypass valve. Also, at some point, I believe it was said that not all tunnels at the power station are operational, and they may not be capable of releasing the 16,950 cfs. 2601:200:4200:C731:B905:7FC1:8F7:8362 ( talk) 23:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the "Emergency spillway damage" section, the verbs in "Several hours later, water stops flowing over the weir onto the emergency spillway and officials begin assessing the state of the emergency spillway." should be changed to "stopped" and "began" to make the tense agree with the rest of the section. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Oroville Dam crisis. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://npdp.stanford.edu/DamDirectory/DamDetail.jsp?npdp_id=CA00035When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oroville Dam crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Oroville Dam crisis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Anyone want another reference The Guardian UK -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There was also a river bypass that the dam was built with. It was damaged extensively in 2009 and has never been used since.
Not sure if this should be added, but in researching any catastrophe, all significant factors should be disclosed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:509F:DC00:D841:AC05:716C:4D4C ( talk) 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are links: DWR planning study on worrisome river valves blamed in 2009 Oroville Dam accident http://www.orovillemr.com/general-news/20120912/dwr-planning-study-on-worrisome-river-valves-blamed-in-2009-oroville-dam-accident Oroville Dam River Outlet Diversion Tunnel No. 2 http://www.srco.com/index.php?id=85 Foolssanma ( talk) 16:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.archive.org/stream/zh9californiastatew2003calirich/zh9californiastatew2003calirich_djvu.txt There has been works on the river outlet in 2014/15 resulting in "half-capacity was enough to meet cold water requirements" https://mavensnotebook.com/2016/06/07/california-water-commission-update-on-state-water-project-operations-and-issues/ Foolssanma ( talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an additional photo of the damaged spillway on Wikimapia available here. It's probably CC-BY-SA. The Wikimapia view of the location for the 2017 Spillway Failure is here, including grid coordinates. - tucoxn\ talk 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit request: The significance of the *entire* California National Guard being placed on alert status bears mentioning somewhere in this article. Per a statement from Adjutant General David S. Baldwin quoted by the LA Times ( http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-live-updates-oroville-dam-all-23-000-california-national-guard-1486988371-htmlstory.html), the total forces of the California National Guard have not been on alert status since the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. MilesFrmOrdnary ( talk) 21:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Magnolia677: Re: my edit and your revert. Yes, I know it's already there, but more scattered and hard to follow. In particular, the interactions between the various events are hard to divine from the current text. I thought a more straightforward summary was needed, and this seemed the best place to insert it. (I'm also limited by the fact that, as a frequently updated current event, I can't take too long editing or I get conflicts. That rush is why I didn't insert all the citations yet; they're elsewhere in the article and can be added piecemeal.) Could you suggest a better place (or reconsider?) Thank you! 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As others have noted, this discussion thread at metabunk.org is quite useful.
One good source I found there is Bulletin No. 200: California State Water Project Volume III: Storage Facilities (PDF) (Report). State of California Department of Water Resources. November 1974. Pages 63–140 have a lot of original design information on the Oroville dam. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Magnolia677: has reverted many of my additions to this article. I would like other editors to look at this diff and restore it. Magnolia has cn tagged the 55000 cubic foot number even though it is in the Kasler source just cited. The diff also identifies the "wall" as a "weir". It more strongly ties the fear is the collapse of the weir rather than the entire auxiliary spillway. See use of "weir" at at thumb|center|Chute Spillway. A "30-ft wall of water" is not good terminology. "Wall"s are high but they are not usually thick. The wall will not be 30-ft high as it flows down the Feather River. Thee acre-feet number is WP:CALC. Glrx ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DISASTER, the word "crisis" shouldnever be used in a case like this article:
Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like. ... Only use the word crisis when it meets the definition, such as a constitutional crisis.
I suggest the title 2017 Oroville Dam overflow. AHeneen ( talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The word "crisis" is also very, if not more, dramatic. Words like "disaster" and "crisis" are vague and subjective and should be avoided when possible. While the spillway failures will result in a lot of danger over the next few months, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article can be renamed if necessary. However, the fact that there are effects after or other than the event mentioned in the title does not make it a bad title. If it did then there would be articles for "1906 San Francisco disaster" for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which caused a fire that destroyed the city, or "2011 Japan crisis" for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, when the resulting nuclear meltdown was also a major resulting event and there was a significant effect on Japan's economy afterwards.
I couldn't find any discussion about the policy above regarding the word "crisis". The given definition of "crisis" renders other parts of the WP:DISASTER policy irrelevant. I think that the intention was that "crisis" should only be used when it is part of a generally-used phrase, such as "constitutional crisis". More weight should be given to the intention of the WP:DISASTER policy, which is to use a more descriptive title when possible. Another policy to consider is
WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.
AHeneen (
talk) 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm most concerned w/noting that it was the spillways that failed, not the dam. I'd prefer 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failures or 2017 Oroville Dam spillway crisis. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the section boundaries in an attempt to make this clearer. What I would like to do now is to remove the duplication from:
But that will involve the deletion of some text! So I am coming here first.
If anyone wants to perform the edit- please do. Otherwise I will just comment out some of the duplicates so they can be reintroduced if I have got it wrong. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
References
100K
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please undo Special:Diff/765869112 which introduced the section heading "Risk of Dam Collapse". A significant ongoing problem has been the confusion between a spillway collapse and a dam collapse. The former is a possibility, would devastate Oroville and cause a major flood downstream. The latter would be cataclysmic, but is pretty much impossible, because of the large knob of bedrock between the spillways and the dam. The difference is between 30 ft of the reservoir lost and ≈770 ft. Both bad, but a very big difference. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 02:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (Ping @ Magnolia677:, whose edit this is.)
(You're welcome to choose an alternative title, of course, like "Risk of spillway collapse". 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC))
I see this article references http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oroville-Dam-spillway-hole-erosion-water-reservoir-10920358.php a few times but actually links to http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article131579999.html which seems to be a different issue. I also plan to kick this article over to Wikipedia:Did you know, so all the "citation needed"s will need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this is a very nice graphic detailing the situation. However, images should not be used to convey text per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The main reasons are that text in images can't be searched and—more importantly—can't be read by software for the visually impaired, plus the large image is awkward on mobile displays. The individual images can be used to illustrate some of the events (labels are ok in the image, but descriptions should be a caption and not part of the image), but the entire chart is overkill. I would have placed a cleanup tag in the section, but since the DYK nomination has passed, I decided to just remove the image to here so that is doesn't affect the posting of the DYK.
Also, the description of the 2005 proposal is misleading/inaccurate. The federal government didn't deny the request per se. During a re-licensing procedure, some environmental groups proposed that the federal government require the state to line the emergency spillway with concrete as a condition of renewing the license. The federal government noted that the existing spillway met existing guidelines and therefore approved the license. See this article. So it's not that the proposal was rejected by federal regulators, but that their guidelines were satisfied by the existing structure and they had no valid reason to deny a renewal. For fairness and to satisfy due process of law, practically all licensing/permitting and contracting by government agencies is based on predetermined criteria. Even if "rejected" is technically correct, it is a misleading term in this situation. AHeneen ( talk) 09:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Under "2005: Upgrade proposal rejected": there was no credible costs estimate for armoring the spillway. Under "Repairs made": Rocks were not placed "under" the emergency spillway; they were placed downstream of the emergency spillway weir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.89.109 ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
=== Avoid entering textual information as images === {{shortcut|MOS:TEXTASIMAGES}} Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]] tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.
Is that the that the text you are quoting as an authority?
The text says almost always.
I appreciate the concern, but in an on-going current situation I think it is a reasonable compromise to include the informative images until we have something better. I won't be difficult to knock up an equivalent svg but will take some time. You admit the text is technically correct, and our format allows the use of alt text to help screen readers WP:ALTIMG, can I suggest that is the interim solution. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
|upright=
not |px=
(see
MOS:IMGSIZE and
WP:IMGSIZE) and even in the exceptional case where px is used, the image shouldn't be larger than 500x400.
AHeneen (
talk) 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've redistributed several images throughout the article and added a decent amount of context to the article. After all that, I suggest breaking up the images individually. Using this revision of the article, I suggest:
In my opinion, it's better to use real images of the situation. I should mention that the creator of the infographic did a good job, I hope my comments aren't interpreted harshly. AHeneen ( talk) 09:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|-
|colspan=3|<center>[[File:Oroville dam infographic feb 14.bottom.png|800px]]</center>
|-
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
ClemRutter ( talk) 18:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a version with changes to the labels I suggested. I had a hard time trying to place the "emergency spillway" label in a way that doesn't create too much visual clutter, eventually settling on an offset, two line label. This doesn't easily allow the addition of the road, but I'm now thinking that may not be needed. The "Feather River" doesn't look quite as good as the original file. I am using Inkscape and don't know how to easily create text aligned on a curve as the version above. Also, after uploading the file to Commons, the font appeared different than it does in Inkscape, so I uploaded a PNG version which appears as the file does in Inkscape. However, on this page, the images appear identical. The font for the labels is DejaVu Sans, bold, 11pt, except "Feather River" and "Lake Oroville" which are DejaVu Sans, normal (not bold), 14pt. I increased the width of the stroke of the edges of the emergency spillway to 1.5 so it is more visible and added a slim black border on the image. It is displayed here at close to the standard thumb size (220px). AHeneen ( talk) 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
@
Shannon1: Please do not convert the text to curves. Wikipedia uses rsvg
to convert SVG files to the PNG bitmaps that are actually displayed in the article. rsvg
has many limitations such as not using some common proprietary fonts. The workaround is to use the available fonts. rsvg
does not do text on a path, so the workaround is to use ordinary text (possibly rotated). The image will be uglier, but it simplifies translation.
Glrx (
talk) 19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
rsvg
does not claim to do alignment-baseline
: see
File:SVG Test TextAlign.svg. Some browsers do and other browsers don't. That little quirk is a huge monkey wrench for compatibility. Browsers also lie about feature#Text
and may not use a consistent baseline. Well, this problem may also result from errors in particular font definitions; it's not exactly clear where all the problems arise, but the same SVG file can produce significantly different images. It can be especially irksome in maps:
File:StrekenProvincieUtrecht1.svg (SVG 1.1 with default alignment-baseline
).I made suggestions above regarding the placement of images in the article, but there was never much discussion about it. I made a test edit to the article with a proposed layout of media on the article. Check out this revision (a test edit which I've reverted). It removes the infographic, but keeps a couple of the useful images. A major difficulty is trying to place the images so that they don't stack on top of each other or cause other major visual/formatting clutter. I added a gallery which is not always appropriate, but this is a case where I believe one is appropriate. I think 1-2 other images of emergency repairs would be useful to add to the gallery for comprehension, but the manual of style guidelines for image galleries needs to be kept in mind.
The DWR has a great photogallery of the event with lots of quality, high-resolution images. I encourage others to find images of the emergency repairs that would work great in this article. You can't right click on the website and can't download images without 1) creating a free account and 2) requesting permission to download an image (I sent the message "Hello, I would like to use this image for Wikipedia" and was given permission to download all of the DWR's photos). The great thing is that the images are all public domain (they're tagged as such in the photogallery and see also the Commons template commons:Template:PD-CAGov)!!
The DWR also has a YouTube channel with several aerial views of the incident (also public domain). I included a placeholder video in the proposed layout. One of the DWR YouTube videos can be downloaded and added to Commons.
Please browse the DWR photogallery and YouTube videos to suggest which would be best or most appropriate for this article if you like the proposed layout. AHeneen ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I am hoping to put this conversation into a tutorial booklet later, so can I ask some basic questions
style
attribute. The poor implementation may be due to poor tools.
Glrx (
talk) 19:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
rsvg
. This suggests a that a help sheet on how to use svg will have sections: one
rsvg
are sometimes brought up (e.g., don't use small font sizes). More diffuse are some significant problems with both rsvg
and the Wikimedia software that serves the bitmap images; that exists in bug lists on Phabricator and Bugzilla and the source code repositories. Just about everybody wants rsvg
to do text on a path (
Phabricator:T11420) and better text alignment, but I don't think that has happened. In addition, there are once-in-a-while discussions about replacing rsvg
or directly serving SVG rather than generated PNG bitmaps. Directly serving SVG raises issues that browser SVG support varies; some SVG files are huge compared to the PNG bitmap. More diffuse are the various problems that Adobe Illustrator (e.g., extensions and XML entities), Inkscape (e.g., verbose, little inheritance, non-standard SVG entities, and illegal names), and other SVG applications (e.g., definitions after use) present. Even then, the advice can be fragmented. Some editors recommend converting text to curves to avoid font rendering problems (quick and dirty solution), but that bloats the SVG file and hinders translation (translation has another huge set of headaches). Some editors propose uploading dual SVG/PNG files at Commons or even dual SVG versions, but that creates a copy maintenance headache.
Glrx (
talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the {{
MOS|infographic|date=February 2017}}
notice near the bottom of the article to {{
MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images|date=February 2017}}
, which will appear as
{{
MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images}}
That helps clarify what the issue is. Thank you!
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 10:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2017 Oroville Dam crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be useful to explain that the concrete spillway can only be used when the lake is at a certain level (DWR says 817 feet, but one of your sources list 813.6 feet). At this point, the lake level is below the release gates. In any case, this is an important piece of data because if the level is below that figure (whatever it is), then the only way to drop the level any farther is through (1) the power station and (2) the bypass valve. Also, at some point, I believe it was said that not all tunnels at the power station are operational, and they may not be capable of releasing the 16,950 cfs. 2601:200:4200:C731:B905:7FC1:8F7:8362 ( talk) 23:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the "Emergency spillway damage" section, the verbs in "Several hours later, water stops flowing over the weir onto the emergency spillway and officials begin assessing the state of the emergency spillway." should be changed to "stopped" and "began" to make the tense agree with the rest of the section. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Oroville Dam crisis. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://npdp.stanford.edu/DamDirectory/DamDetail.jsp?npdp_id=CA00035When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)