![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'm wondering if I could get you guys to help me expand/cleanup/update a few Great Basin lake articles, namely: Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake (Nevada), Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake (Idaho/Utah), and Sevier Lake. The latter three are technically covered by WikiProject Utah, but that project sort of... died. BTW I love the idea of a WikiProject specifically for lakes --there's just something about them that I find strangely fascinating. In any event, I really need to take some aspirin and stop pretending I'm not sick :) -- Lethargy 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The project message box for some reason has extra spacing below it, for example:
Examples removed so we don't get categorized incorrectly.
What should happen, using protected areas as an example:
Examples removed: see above.
This is also seen with the mountain template. Can we remove the excess padding?
A second suggestion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah and Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas' templates add the pages to associated categories, Category:WikiProject Utah and Category:Articles of WikiProject Protected areas, respectively. Is there some way we can modify the template to do this as well? I'd like to have a Category:Articles of WikiProject Lakes, but I'm not sure how to do this. -- Lethargy 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that in the infobox we are always using metric units. This is fine for most of the world, but unfortunately we ignorant Americans can't necessarily figure it out. I propose that on lakes that are in the U.S. we place the United States customary units first, then the metric measurements in parenthesis. We could switch the order around for lakes outside the U.S.. As for lakes on the border, I'm not sure I care what order they are in, but both measurements should be there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethargy ( talk • contribs) .
As often as possible, please add a to-do list to articles so wikipedians can quickly see what improvements need to be made to an article. I have already done this on Talk:Utah Lake and Talk:Great Salt Lake, and have requested input for creating one in Talk:Capitol Reef National Park.
These greatly improve the efficiency of the editing process, which is sorely needed in a project with few active members such as this one, as well as wikipedia as a whole.
-- Lethargy 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Copied my comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah
-- Lethargy 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to take a page from WikiProject Utah's book (the only other project I have experience with) and use the to-do list to categorize what we want to do with articles. For instance, Utah has sections such as:
etc.
These are very nice to have so project members know what to focus on. To see better how this works Check out their list. -- Lethargy 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been around a lot in article naming for country subdivisions. Also participated in river naming and fixed other landforms. IMO, since the landform naming faces some similiar problems, we should all join forces and write a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms). If you have ideas for lake naming maybe have a look there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Great Salt Lake has now been listed as a good article, and I plan to submit it for peer review soon. Before I do that, I'd be very grateful if everyone could copy-edit it (see Wikipedia:How to copy-edit) to improve grammar, punctuation, tone, etc. Also, please review it and list any opportunities for improvement here or on Talk:Great Salt Lake. -- Lethargy 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have any comments on what has been nominated at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Lakes and seas, or if you feel something else should be added, please add your comments there... or here... anywhere :). Also, please help us to improve those articles on this list that are in the greatest need of improvement, so they can be included without any problems. -- Lethargy 18:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Right now we have two articles that are GA standard ( Great Salt Lake and Lake Kariba), and none that are featured. There are two featured lakes ( Chew Valley Lake and Lake Burley Griffin), but we haven't worked on them with this project and they aren't tagged as part of this.
I figure we should start assessing articles that are the closes to becoming good articles, and work on them to the point they can be nominated. As you come across articles that are close to GA standard, add them to the to-do list above under the "To improve to GA standard" heading. As they pass GA standard, move them up the ladder to FA standard in the to-do list. After looking through some of our articles, I think Dead Sea and Lake Erie are our best bets, unfortunately both of these are unreferenced. Let's see if we can find enough sources to bring these up to GA standard.
OK, so that was a long-winded way of asking for help. :) -- Lethargy 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if you all thought that this article would fall under your project's scope or not. Badbilltucker 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello friends! To which form should Category:Islands in lakes be renamed? I propose "Islands of the lakes". - Darwinek 13:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A move request is currently underway at Talk:Cheonji lake, to which I would value contributions from members of this project. -- Stemonitis 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Lake Matano is described as 'a natural manger lake' but I can't find out from Wikipedia or elsewhere what this means. Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bwmodular ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
At the above talk page, I suggest an update of the naming convention for articles about lakes in New Zealand. They would be titled similarly to WP:LAKES#Multiple_lakes_with_the_same_name. -- User:Docu
Note: Section header added by User:Docu
The gallery with the image in the infobox at WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries was updated. The update is with data from March 2008.
The articles without an image (in the infobox) can be browsed through Category:Wikipedia infobox lake articles without image. As the category is defined in the infobox, articles are added/removed automatically (see the category description for more information).
The Free Image Search Tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php can be used to search for articles in the lake's category of a given country/state/province, etc. -- User:Docu
The gallery with the image in the infobox at WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries was updated. The update is with data from October 2008.
The articles without an image (in the infobox) can be browsed through Category:Wikipedia infobox lake articles without image. As the category is defined in the infobox, articles are added/removed automatically (see the category description for more information).
The Free Image Search Tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php can be used to search for articles in the lake's category of a given country/state/province, etc. -- 15:29, 2009 January 18 -- User:Docu
Where can we find a list of lake type categories? In addition to list of lakes per continent / country, we should have a list of Lake Type Categories, and lists of lakes by type. I checked around but didn't see anything. Revmachine21 10:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are some lake types (categories) based on lake genesis, geography, and trophic status, etc.:
I just noticed this very robust list you've added! Nice work. Thanks, I will definitely use this info! Em3rald 01:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all... Was thinking about a couple types of dangerous lake phenomena, one limnic eruption and another whose name I forgot. Basically the lake water sloshes around in the lake bowl in rythmic fashion causing dangerous high waves. I think the Great Lakes are prone to this type of sloshing event. Probably caused by wind. Does anybody else know of other dangerous lake phenomena.... well now here's another one that popped to mind, natural lake dam erosion & resulting flooding. In fact there was a gigantic inland lake in the center of the US, natural damn washed out thousands of years ago and created the western deserts in the US. Probably big time bad for the beasties that lived there at the time. Montana used to be the lake bottom. Is there a specific scientific term for this? Revmachine21 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to consider some really wild phenomena, Check out Lake Tahoe. How about 100 foot high tital waves? Lake Central ( talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Should we be covering man-made lakes (e.g Lake Powell, Lake Sakakawea) as well as natural lakes with this project? My personal opinion is that we should cover both, but only focus on significant reservoirs so we don't overextend ourselves. -- Lethargy 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The Project very clearly has a problem as to what to regard as a “lake”. At the present time we have everything from an artificial fenced reservoir with armed guards, to a totally artificial, early-day water park in London, with piped in water from who knows where (no one knows even in 2008). This is all becoming more than a little preposterous!
What are we to experience next, a professionally perfect 20 page posting from the great Disney Corporation, on the technological marvels of Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon in Orlando? Well, why not? The London water park is nothing but part of an early day Disney World and we have given this thing an FA rating! My friends, we must get a grip here and get in the game!
Rather than suggest arbitrary limits for a sound lake definition, I would propose that the idea of a separate “Reservoir Project” be immediately advanced and expanded to include all artificial (man-made) bodies of water of whatever size. Call it Reservoirs and Artificial Bodies of Water or, whatever! Lake Central ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose, apropos the above, that a separate, descendant WikiProject for reservoirs be created. I and another editor have recently gotten done adding and enhancing articles on all New York City reservoirs, and while he stuck the lake infobox in one, I don't think it quite fits. There's info you want for a reservoir that just doesn't apply to a lake (construction date, operating authority etc.) and some info for the lake (settlements) not likely to apply to a reservoir (See Chew Valley Lake, a featured article, for an ad hoc infobox for a reservoir). And likewise it applies to the articles as well.
Any thoughts? Daniel Case 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
State | Dams | Lakes | Reservoirs |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 167 | over 2,000 | 67 |
Massachusetts | 1192 | 1552 | 1393 |
New Hampshire | 594 | 874 | 591 |
Ohio | 1057 | 345 | 1255 |
For Alaska, covering the 67 reservoirs or 167 dams is relatively "easy". Ohio's 345 natural lakes are similarly do-able, but the other numbers get a bit daunting without either assistance (participants) or automation. WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has a tool which someone created that stubs out their Infobox nrhp, i.e. it searches some commercial or government source(s) and fills in what it can find of their infobox. Besides USGS and federal EPA sources, in most states, the source for information about lakes would be that state's EPA or Department of Natural Resources. Another big aid would be to create an article stub/template which contributors could copy and "fill in the blanks", i.e. the infobox, section headings, and a bunch of < ! - - comments - - > telling contributors what to put in each section and where they might find that information, i.e. links to federal and state sources. An issue which will come up is disambiguation, i.e. before creating a lake (or reservoir) article, making sure that your article name is "unique" and properly disambiguated. Usually "official-GNIS-name-of-the-lake (smallest-appropriate-civil-subdivision)", where smallest-appropriate-civil-subdivision means the (town or village, city, borough or county, state, country, or continent) either fully containing the lake, while being disambiguous, or the drain/mouth and as much of the lake as possible. It would help if each person initially creating an article checks to make sure their name is disambiguous before starting, and creating or appending to a disambiguation page with the "common" part of the name with disambiguated names for each potential conflict.
For instance, USGS-GNIS has (4) "Brandywine Lake": in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. They should be:
For an example disambiguation page, Brandywine Lake redirects to Brandywine. LeheckaG ( talk) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys seen {{ Infobox Lake}}? As opposed to {{ Infobox lake}}, which seems to have been created for this project? (Judging from {{ Infobox Mountain}} etc it's more normal to use the capital letter.)
The Lake infobox has been used for some time and has been used quite a lot on European lakes, especially those in Norway (have a look at the List of lakes in Norway). The nice thing about Infobox Lake is that it matches the format used for lake infoboxes in other language Wikipedias. This has been especially useful for editors translating lake articles from other Wikipedias (I must have translated several hundred articles from Norwegian, and know that other contributors have been doing the same).
Now, the new template does have some neat new features.
I would strongly suggest merging these two infoboxes, trying to maintain the best features of each, and the correct location to do it would appear to be under the name "Infobox Lake" with a capital "L" (it's not "Infobox mountain", for instance).
TheGrappler 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The above text was reformatted by Docu on 29 October 2006
There are 106 lakes using the Template:Infobox lake, and 515 lakes using Template:Infobox Lake. Both templates are listed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Infobox_accessibility; at first glance I don't see any accessibility problems with either; there may be cases where the infoboxes are not used appropriately to avoid problems though.
Template:Infobox Lake | => Template:infobox lake | Change to do |
---|---|---|
Name | lake_name | Use lake_name |
Photo | image_lake | Use image_lake |
Caption | caption_lake | Use caption_lake |
Coordinates | coords | Use coords |
Location | n/a | Location added |
Depth | max-depth, not depth | Change to max-depth |
Volume | volume | no change |
Type | type | no change |
Elevation | elevation | no change |
Perimeter | shore | use shore |
Source | n/a | added as "Reference" |
This table provides a list of changes to do in order to adapt the fields of Template:Infobox Lake to those of Template:Infobox lake. Please update/complete/correct them. -- User:Docu
Starting a WikiProject Lakes was actually on my medium term to-do list; I applaud those who got it in ahead of me! Perhaps a key priority for this project should be sorting out the Lake article itself, which is rubbish and somehow seemed to get worse (if memory serves) as the result of an improvement drive which just ended up scattering more random factoids onto it. An article that talked about the hydrology, geology, ecology and human geography of lakes, and talked about some of the most prominent examples of various types, would easily be able to reach featured status. TheGrappler 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to pop in and let you guys know, the Lake article is a mess again and needs a lot of love. shaggy ( talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You have tagged the city of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin for this WikiProject. I doubt you want the city, but that you instead want the lake, which is Geneva Lake. Cheers! Royalbroil Talk Contrib 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved from #Sources: " World Lake Database - hosted by the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC)".
On some talk pages, problems with the data appeared: Talk:Lake Lucerne, Talk:Lake Athabasca, Talk:Smallwood Reservoir, Talk:Lake Saint Clair (North America). It's possible that these are isolated cases, but, as for most references, double-checking the data is necessary. -- User:Docu
Hi, I've just noticed this project box being added by a bot the talk pages of some of the articles I watch Blagdon Lake, Bristol Reservoirs and Cheddar Reservoir. None of these are lakes, all being built as reservoirs (largely for the city of Bristol). Does this project cover man made bodies of water, if so should it also include Chew Valley Lake, Barrow Gurney Reservoirs, Litton Reservoirs and Chew Magna Reservoir (which I did most of the editing on)?— Rod talk 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Can project members please note that the term "lake" can be considered border-line offensive, or worse, to Scots in regards to lochs. This may sound stupid to outsiders, but it is a serious enough issue in Scotland itself, and there are historical reasons for it. -- MacRusgail 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(Revisit) - can users "employ their awareness" and actually use the word "loch"/"lough" in templates etc? That would be really nice. -- MacRusgail 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Is anything being done about this at all?! -- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
From: Etymology OnLine - Lake
{{ Infobox lake}} shouldn't be on Carlingford Lough, as it's a sea lough. This lead to banner being added to Talk:Carlingford Lough. We agreed that {{ lake project}} should only be used on freshwater lochs, but not sea lochs (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lakes/Articles/all#Scotland). -- User:Docu
I've looked at using the Template:Infobox lake for some of my local reservoirs but am now looking at Geoboxes (see Category:Geobox) as providing more functionality and flexibility (while being compatible with everything else). There is already a Template:Geobox River and the creator is taking requests - has anyone else tried this for lakes/reserviours?— Rod talk 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics that includes a section about lakes. I've tried to include only topics that have no equivalent Wikipedia article but I'd appreciate if somebody could have a look at that list, - Skysmith 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The Category:International Lakes that was mentioned earlier on the project page, appears no longer to exist. I think it may be best that any lake should be placed as one of its categories, in a 'Lakes of country'. As quite a few lakes are on a border, these cannot be placed. Hence a kind of 'international' category should remain. I would suggest to follow the example of the UNESCO, also by Wikipedia adopted e.g. for its List of World Heritage Sites in Europe in classifying sites, thus such lakes would be placed in ' Category:Transboundary lakes' (no capital L for 'lakes', it's not a name and should not suggest that lakes know by a name like "See" or "Sea" could not belong in the category). — SomeHuman 2 Apr 2007 00:04 (UTC)
Great Lakes Storm of 1913 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The lakes listing for the US is becoming too unwieldy and it takes up almost half the List of lakes article.
I'd like to propose a new List of lakes in the USA (or whatever the naming convention is for major US features). Pull all the US lakes into there, leaving only a few really major lakes and the link, then create list of lakes for every state and populate those.
There's already articles like List of lakes in Alabama, but that's restricted to game fish, so there's some renaming and more sorting to be done at that level. Malathos 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Lake Merritt, it's a tidal lagoon and not a true lake. Should this be included in your project? Calibas 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed someone wants to delete lakes when they are "too small", as an example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nodlandsvatnet#Nodlandsvatnet. Does the participants at this project have any notability-guidelines, or are you agreeing with me lakes are inherently notable? Greswik ( talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think no lake should be "erased" from wikipedia. Sure, it is a big task to get something about them all. But we're doing it, little by little. Andercee ( talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Project very clearly has a problem as to what to regard as a “lake”. At the present time we have everything from an artificial fenced reservoir with armed guards, to a totally artificial, early-day water park in London, with piped in water from who knows where (no one knows even in 2008). This is all becoming more than a little preposterous!
What are we to experience next, a professionally perfect 20 page posting from the great Disney Corporation, on the technological marvels of Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon in Orlando? Well, why not? The London water park is nothing but part of an early day Disney World and we have given this thing an FA rating! My friends, we must get a grip here and get in the game!
Rather than suggest arbitrary limits for a sound lake definition, I would propose that the idea of a separate “Reservoir Project” be immediately advanced and expanded to include all artificial (man-made) bodies of water of whatever size. Call it Reservoirs and Artificial Bodies of Water or, whatever! Lake Central ( talk) 05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a long, but kinda random list of lake retention time figures at Lake retention time. I've made some suggestions for improvements at Talk:Lake retention time in the hope that we can turn this into a useful list. Thoughts of the lake-editing community are welcome. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'm wondering if I could get you guys to help me expand/cleanup/update a few Great Basin lake articles, namely: Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake (Nevada), Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake (Idaho/Utah), and Sevier Lake. The latter three are technically covered by WikiProject Utah, but that project sort of... died. BTW I love the idea of a WikiProject specifically for lakes --there's just something about them that I find strangely fascinating. In any event, I really need to take some aspirin and stop pretending I'm not sick :) -- Lethargy 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The project message box for some reason has extra spacing below it, for example:
Examples removed so we don't get categorized incorrectly.
What should happen, using protected areas as an example:
Examples removed: see above.
This is also seen with the mountain template. Can we remove the excess padding?
A second suggestion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah and Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas' templates add the pages to associated categories, Category:WikiProject Utah and Category:Articles of WikiProject Protected areas, respectively. Is there some way we can modify the template to do this as well? I'd like to have a Category:Articles of WikiProject Lakes, but I'm not sure how to do this. -- Lethargy 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that in the infobox we are always using metric units. This is fine for most of the world, but unfortunately we ignorant Americans can't necessarily figure it out. I propose that on lakes that are in the U.S. we place the United States customary units first, then the metric measurements in parenthesis. We could switch the order around for lakes outside the U.S.. As for lakes on the border, I'm not sure I care what order they are in, but both measurements should be there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethargy ( talk • contribs) .
As often as possible, please add a to-do list to articles so wikipedians can quickly see what improvements need to be made to an article. I have already done this on Talk:Utah Lake and Talk:Great Salt Lake, and have requested input for creating one in Talk:Capitol Reef National Park.
These greatly improve the efficiency of the editing process, which is sorely needed in a project with few active members such as this one, as well as wikipedia as a whole.
-- Lethargy 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Copied my comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah
-- Lethargy 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to take a page from WikiProject Utah's book (the only other project I have experience with) and use the to-do list to categorize what we want to do with articles. For instance, Utah has sections such as:
etc.
These are very nice to have so project members know what to focus on. To see better how this works Check out their list. -- Lethargy 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been around a lot in article naming for country subdivisions. Also participated in river naming and fixed other landforms. IMO, since the landform naming faces some similiar problems, we should all join forces and write a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms). If you have ideas for lake naming maybe have a look there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Great Salt Lake has now been listed as a good article, and I plan to submit it for peer review soon. Before I do that, I'd be very grateful if everyone could copy-edit it (see Wikipedia:How to copy-edit) to improve grammar, punctuation, tone, etc. Also, please review it and list any opportunities for improvement here or on Talk:Great Salt Lake. -- Lethargy 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have any comments on what has been nominated at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Lakes and seas, or if you feel something else should be added, please add your comments there... or here... anywhere :). Also, please help us to improve those articles on this list that are in the greatest need of improvement, so they can be included without any problems. -- Lethargy 18:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Right now we have two articles that are GA standard ( Great Salt Lake and Lake Kariba), and none that are featured. There are two featured lakes ( Chew Valley Lake and Lake Burley Griffin), but we haven't worked on them with this project and they aren't tagged as part of this.
I figure we should start assessing articles that are the closes to becoming good articles, and work on them to the point they can be nominated. As you come across articles that are close to GA standard, add them to the to-do list above under the "To improve to GA standard" heading. As they pass GA standard, move them up the ladder to FA standard in the to-do list. After looking through some of our articles, I think Dead Sea and Lake Erie are our best bets, unfortunately both of these are unreferenced. Let's see if we can find enough sources to bring these up to GA standard.
OK, so that was a long-winded way of asking for help. :) -- Lethargy 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if you all thought that this article would fall under your project's scope or not. Badbilltucker 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello friends! To which form should Category:Islands in lakes be renamed? I propose "Islands of the lakes". - Darwinek 13:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A move request is currently underway at Talk:Cheonji lake, to which I would value contributions from members of this project. -- Stemonitis 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Lake Matano is described as 'a natural manger lake' but I can't find out from Wikipedia or elsewhere what this means. Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bwmodular ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
At the above talk page, I suggest an update of the naming convention for articles about lakes in New Zealand. They would be titled similarly to WP:LAKES#Multiple_lakes_with_the_same_name. -- User:Docu
Note: Section header added by User:Docu
The gallery with the image in the infobox at WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries was updated. The update is with data from March 2008.
The articles without an image (in the infobox) can be browsed through Category:Wikipedia infobox lake articles without image. As the category is defined in the infobox, articles are added/removed automatically (see the category description for more information).
The Free Image Search Tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php can be used to search for articles in the lake's category of a given country/state/province, etc. -- User:Docu
The gallery with the image in the infobox at WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries was updated. The update is with data from October 2008.
The articles without an image (in the infobox) can be browsed through Category:Wikipedia infobox lake articles without image. As the category is defined in the infobox, articles are added/removed automatically (see the category description for more information).
The Free Image Search Tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php can be used to search for articles in the lake's category of a given country/state/province, etc. -- 15:29, 2009 January 18 -- User:Docu
Where can we find a list of lake type categories? In addition to list of lakes per continent / country, we should have a list of Lake Type Categories, and lists of lakes by type. I checked around but didn't see anything. Revmachine21 10:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are some lake types (categories) based on lake genesis, geography, and trophic status, etc.:
I just noticed this very robust list you've added! Nice work. Thanks, I will definitely use this info! Em3rald 01:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all... Was thinking about a couple types of dangerous lake phenomena, one limnic eruption and another whose name I forgot. Basically the lake water sloshes around in the lake bowl in rythmic fashion causing dangerous high waves. I think the Great Lakes are prone to this type of sloshing event. Probably caused by wind. Does anybody else know of other dangerous lake phenomena.... well now here's another one that popped to mind, natural lake dam erosion & resulting flooding. In fact there was a gigantic inland lake in the center of the US, natural damn washed out thousands of years ago and created the western deserts in the US. Probably big time bad for the beasties that lived there at the time. Montana used to be the lake bottom. Is there a specific scientific term for this? Revmachine21 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to consider some really wild phenomena, Check out Lake Tahoe. How about 100 foot high tital waves? Lake Central ( talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Should we be covering man-made lakes (e.g Lake Powell, Lake Sakakawea) as well as natural lakes with this project? My personal opinion is that we should cover both, but only focus on significant reservoirs so we don't overextend ourselves. -- Lethargy 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The Project very clearly has a problem as to what to regard as a “lake”. At the present time we have everything from an artificial fenced reservoir with armed guards, to a totally artificial, early-day water park in London, with piped in water from who knows where (no one knows even in 2008). This is all becoming more than a little preposterous!
What are we to experience next, a professionally perfect 20 page posting from the great Disney Corporation, on the technological marvels of Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon in Orlando? Well, why not? The London water park is nothing but part of an early day Disney World and we have given this thing an FA rating! My friends, we must get a grip here and get in the game!
Rather than suggest arbitrary limits for a sound lake definition, I would propose that the idea of a separate “Reservoir Project” be immediately advanced and expanded to include all artificial (man-made) bodies of water of whatever size. Call it Reservoirs and Artificial Bodies of Water or, whatever! Lake Central ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose, apropos the above, that a separate, descendant WikiProject for reservoirs be created. I and another editor have recently gotten done adding and enhancing articles on all New York City reservoirs, and while he stuck the lake infobox in one, I don't think it quite fits. There's info you want for a reservoir that just doesn't apply to a lake (construction date, operating authority etc.) and some info for the lake (settlements) not likely to apply to a reservoir (See Chew Valley Lake, a featured article, for an ad hoc infobox for a reservoir). And likewise it applies to the articles as well.
Any thoughts? Daniel Case 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
State | Dams | Lakes | Reservoirs |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 167 | over 2,000 | 67 |
Massachusetts | 1192 | 1552 | 1393 |
New Hampshire | 594 | 874 | 591 |
Ohio | 1057 | 345 | 1255 |
For Alaska, covering the 67 reservoirs or 167 dams is relatively "easy". Ohio's 345 natural lakes are similarly do-able, but the other numbers get a bit daunting without either assistance (participants) or automation. WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has a tool which someone created that stubs out their Infobox nrhp, i.e. it searches some commercial or government source(s) and fills in what it can find of their infobox. Besides USGS and federal EPA sources, in most states, the source for information about lakes would be that state's EPA or Department of Natural Resources. Another big aid would be to create an article stub/template which contributors could copy and "fill in the blanks", i.e. the infobox, section headings, and a bunch of < ! - - comments - - > telling contributors what to put in each section and where they might find that information, i.e. links to federal and state sources. An issue which will come up is disambiguation, i.e. before creating a lake (or reservoir) article, making sure that your article name is "unique" and properly disambiguated. Usually "official-GNIS-name-of-the-lake (smallest-appropriate-civil-subdivision)", where smallest-appropriate-civil-subdivision means the (town or village, city, borough or county, state, country, or continent) either fully containing the lake, while being disambiguous, or the drain/mouth and as much of the lake as possible. It would help if each person initially creating an article checks to make sure their name is disambiguous before starting, and creating or appending to a disambiguation page with the "common" part of the name with disambiguated names for each potential conflict.
For instance, USGS-GNIS has (4) "Brandywine Lake": in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. They should be:
For an example disambiguation page, Brandywine Lake redirects to Brandywine. LeheckaG ( talk) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys seen {{ Infobox Lake}}? As opposed to {{ Infobox lake}}, which seems to have been created for this project? (Judging from {{ Infobox Mountain}} etc it's more normal to use the capital letter.)
The Lake infobox has been used for some time and has been used quite a lot on European lakes, especially those in Norway (have a look at the List of lakes in Norway). The nice thing about Infobox Lake is that it matches the format used for lake infoboxes in other language Wikipedias. This has been especially useful for editors translating lake articles from other Wikipedias (I must have translated several hundred articles from Norwegian, and know that other contributors have been doing the same).
Now, the new template does have some neat new features.
I would strongly suggest merging these two infoboxes, trying to maintain the best features of each, and the correct location to do it would appear to be under the name "Infobox Lake" with a capital "L" (it's not "Infobox mountain", for instance).
TheGrappler 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The above text was reformatted by Docu on 29 October 2006
There are 106 lakes using the Template:Infobox lake, and 515 lakes using Template:Infobox Lake. Both templates are listed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Infobox_accessibility; at first glance I don't see any accessibility problems with either; there may be cases where the infoboxes are not used appropriately to avoid problems though.
Template:Infobox Lake | => Template:infobox lake | Change to do |
---|---|---|
Name | lake_name | Use lake_name |
Photo | image_lake | Use image_lake |
Caption | caption_lake | Use caption_lake |
Coordinates | coords | Use coords |
Location | n/a | Location added |
Depth | max-depth, not depth | Change to max-depth |
Volume | volume | no change |
Type | type | no change |
Elevation | elevation | no change |
Perimeter | shore | use shore |
Source | n/a | added as "Reference" |
This table provides a list of changes to do in order to adapt the fields of Template:Infobox Lake to those of Template:Infobox lake. Please update/complete/correct them. -- User:Docu
Starting a WikiProject Lakes was actually on my medium term to-do list; I applaud those who got it in ahead of me! Perhaps a key priority for this project should be sorting out the Lake article itself, which is rubbish and somehow seemed to get worse (if memory serves) as the result of an improvement drive which just ended up scattering more random factoids onto it. An article that talked about the hydrology, geology, ecology and human geography of lakes, and talked about some of the most prominent examples of various types, would easily be able to reach featured status. TheGrappler 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to pop in and let you guys know, the Lake article is a mess again and needs a lot of love. shaggy ( talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You have tagged the city of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin for this WikiProject. I doubt you want the city, but that you instead want the lake, which is Geneva Lake. Cheers! Royalbroil Talk Contrib 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved from #Sources: " World Lake Database - hosted by the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC)".
On some talk pages, problems with the data appeared: Talk:Lake Lucerne, Talk:Lake Athabasca, Talk:Smallwood Reservoir, Talk:Lake Saint Clair (North America). It's possible that these are isolated cases, but, as for most references, double-checking the data is necessary. -- User:Docu
Hi, I've just noticed this project box being added by a bot the talk pages of some of the articles I watch Blagdon Lake, Bristol Reservoirs and Cheddar Reservoir. None of these are lakes, all being built as reservoirs (largely for the city of Bristol). Does this project cover man made bodies of water, if so should it also include Chew Valley Lake, Barrow Gurney Reservoirs, Litton Reservoirs and Chew Magna Reservoir (which I did most of the editing on)?— Rod talk 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Can project members please note that the term "lake" can be considered border-line offensive, or worse, to Scots in regards to lochs. This may sound stupid to outsiders, but it is a serious enough issue in Scotland itself, and there are historical reasons for it. -- MacRusgail 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(Revisit) - can users "employ their awareness" and actually use the word "loch"/"lough" in templates etc? That would be really nice. -- MacRusgail 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Is anything being done about this at all?! -- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
From: Etymology OnLine - Lake
{{ Infobox lake}} shouldn't be on Carlingford Lough, as it's a sea lough. This lead to banner being added to Talk:Carlingford Lough. We agreed that {{ lake project}} should only be used on freshwater lochs, but not sea lochs (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lakes/Articles/all#Scotland). -- User:Docu
I've looked at using the Template:Infobox lake for some of my local reservoirs but am now looking at Geoboxes (see Category:Geobox) as providing more functionality and flexibility (while being compatible with everything else). There is already a Template:Geobox River and the creator is taking requests - has anyone else tried this for lakes/reserviours?— Rod talk 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics that includes a section about lakes. I've tried to include only topics that have no equivalent Wikipedia article but I'd appreciate if somebody could have a look at that list, - Skysmith 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The Category:International Lakes that was mentioned earlier on the project page, appears no longer to exist. I think it may be best that any lake should be placed as one of its categories, in a 'Lakes of country'. As quite a few lakes are on a border, these cannot be placed. Hence a kind of 'international' category should remain. I would suggest to follow the example of the UNESCO, also by Wikipedia adopted e.g. for its List of World Heritage Sites in Europe in classifying sites, thus such lakes would be placed in ' Category:Transboundary lakes' (no capital L for 'lakes', it's not a name and should not suggest that lakes know by a name like "See" or "Sea" could not belong in the category). — SomeHuman 2 Apr 2007 00:04 (UTC)
Great Lakes Storm of 1913 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The lakes listing for the US is becoming too unwieldy and it takes up almost half the List of lakes article.
I'd like to propose a new List of lakes in the USA (or whatever the naming convention is for major US features). Pull all the US lakes into there, leaving only a few really major lakes and the link, then create list of lakes for every state and populate those.
There's already articles like List of lakes in Alabama, but that's restricted to game fish, so there's some renaming and more sorting to be done at that level. Malathos 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Lake Merritt, it's a tidal lagoon and not a true lake. Should this be included in your project? Calibas 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed someone wants to delete lakes when they are "too small", as an example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nodlandsvatnet#Nodlandsvatnet. Does the participants at this project have any notability-guidelines, or are you agreeing with me lakes are inherently notable? Greswik ( talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think no lake should be "erased" from wikipedia. Sure, it is a big task to get something about them all. But we're doing it, little by little. Andercee ( talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Project very clearly has a problem as to what to regard as a “lake”. At the present time we have everything from an artificial fenced reservoir with armed guards, to a totally artificial, early-day water park in London, with piped in water from who knows where (no one knows even in 2008). This is all becoming more than a little preposterous!
What are we to experience next, a professionally perfect 20 page posting from the great Disney Corporation, on the technological marvels of Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon in Orlando? Well, why not? The London water park is nothing but part of an early day Disney World and we have given this thing an FA rating! My friends, we must get a grip here and get in the game!
Rather than suggest arbitrary limits for a sound lake definition, I would propose that the idea of a separate “Reservoir Project” be immediately advanced and expanded to include all artificial (man-made) bodies of water of whatever size. Call it Reservoirs and Artificial Bodies of Water or, whatever! Lake Central ( talk) 05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a long, but kinda random list of lake retention time figures at Lake retention time. I've made some suggestions for improvements at Talk:Lake retention time in the hope that we can turn this into a useful list. Thoughts of the lake-editing community are welcome. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)