This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Lakes page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: Index, 1

WikiProject Lakes	(Rated Project-Class)	LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:Lake projectLakes articles
v • d • e Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Index

Contents 1 To do 2 Proposed deletion: Pan 3 Castle Lake (California) was DYK today 4 Lake Winfield Scott listed as a Good Article 5 GA nominee - Castle Lake (California) 6 UK lakes lists 7 Qamanirjuaq Lake 8 Lake Piso 9 Anybody interested in a Bulgarian reservoir (dam)? 10 More 10.1 Scope of project 10.2 Articles flagged for cleanup 10.3 Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 10.4 To Do and Lakes Needing Attention 10.5 Please Help! 10.6 5000 articles with infobox 10.7 List to add redlinks to 10.8 Oxbow in Connecticut 10.9 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Lakes 10.10 Image needs replacement 10.11 Good article review requested for Lake Tahoe 10.12 disambiguating 10.13 Lake Tcharvak or Lake Charvak? 10.14 Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources? 10.15 Vandalism Problem 10.16 what to do with sub-lakes of Nechako Reservoir?? 10.17 Project Banner 10.18 Coordinates format 10.19 Announcements 10.20 Galleries and missing images updated (February 2009 data) 10.21 Naming 10.22 17 February 2009: 6000 lakes 10.23 Badger Pot/Pigeon Pot, Northern Ireland -- not lakes 10.24 Coordinators' working group 10.25 Article alerts 10.26 Funtense - Uvala 10.27 Finger Lakes portal at Peer review 10.28 Finger Lakes portal at Featured portal candidates 10.29 Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge 10.30 FAR for Lake Burley Griffin 10.31 Lakes of Peru 10.32 Dates 10.33 Spotted Lake 10.34 Is Spotted Lake an alkali lake? 10.35 Another Spotted Lake question 10.36 Infobox lake: new properties 10.37 Green Bay statistics on area are wrong

[edit] To do

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes:

Note: articles listed in bold text have tags for cleanup, expansion, or references. Collaboration: To Improve to FA standard: Great Salt Lake - expansion request, see to-do list To improve to GA standard: Dead Sea - needs sources Lake Erie - needs sources, History section needs expansion. To Expand: Lake Agassiz Aral Sea Lake Athabasca Lake Baikal Lake Balkhash Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah) - expansion request, see to-do list Black Sea Lake Bonneville Caspian Sea - needs sources Flathead Lake Great Bear Lake - needs sources Lake Ladoga Lake Lahontan Lake Manitoba Lake Maracaibo - needs cleanup for grammar Mono Lake Lake Monoun Morskie Oko Lake Nyos Lake Onega - needs sources Pyramid Lake Great Slave Lake Lake Titicaca Tsomoriri Utah Lake - to-do list Lake Victoria Lake Winnipegosis To De-stub: Donner Lake Glacial Lake Missoula Lake Nicaragua Reindeer Lake Contribute images to articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes/Galleries/Image missing To Create: Sly Park, California/Jenkinson Lake - interesting history, flooded homes, etc - http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/folsom.html#slypark Find another Lost Lake To Add Features: Bathymetry images - Environmental phenomena (Standing waves, Seismic activity) Work on: Lake - Definition (see Talk:Lake) - Ecology - Cultural & Historical impact - Transportation To separate average and maximum depths in the infoboxes on every lake page. Add infoboxes to articles: Catscan: Lakes of North America

[edit] Proposed deletion: Pan

Pan (geography) (via WP:PROD on 3 January 2008)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castle Lake (California) was DYK today

Castle Lake (California) was DYK today. NorCalHistory (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Winfield Scott listed as a Good Article

Lake Winfield Scott, a recent DYK, was listed as a Good Article On January 31. Majoreditor (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nominee - Castle Lake (California)

Castle Lake (California) is a current Good article nominee.NorCalHistory (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK lakes lists

Could somebody keep an eye on List of lakes in the United Kingdom please? (I can't.) I just fixed some obvious vandalism that was eight weeks old. I also copied across the appropriate section from list of lakes as that article contained far more lakes than the supposed main article. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qamanirjuaq Lake

This is a 2008-02-13 DYK? selfnom. Thanks in advance if you have an appropriate image or can improve the article in some other way. Rosiestephenson (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, it appeared on DYK? today. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Piso

I recently created an article about Lake Piso, a brackish water lake in western Liberia. I have tried to follow, as much as possible, the recommended structure offered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes#Article structure. However, I'm not an expert on lakes, and would like to ask that someone with more subject-specific knowledge take a look at the article and comment on it. In particular, I would like assistance with:

1. Determining whether the article includes any errors or misunderstandings regarding the distinction between a lake and lagoon (see the Google satellite image). As I understand it, Lake Piso is an example of both, and both terms are used by various sources.
2. Making the infobox more complete, specifically with regard to the "type" parameter.

I have nominated the article for DYK (see here) and would appreciate any assistance in improving it. Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody interested in a Bulgarian reservoir (dam)?

I've been eyeing the Dospat Dam page for some time. I have some beautiful photos of this place, and a bit of knowledge about it (plus, I read Bulgarian well). I have two questions at the moment:

1. It bothers me to have this called a "dam", because in Bulgarian they do distinguish between the Reservior (Bg. язовир) and the Dam (Bg. язовирска стена). I have not been able to find solid evidence to support either usage, yet.
2. I've been working on a map to show the shape of the reservoir and the positions of Dospat and Sarnitsa. You'll find a link to my attempt on the Talk page - comment would be appreciated (please put it on Talk:Dospat Dam). Thank you. — Martha (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More

[edit] Scope of project

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 GA 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) 05:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me to which extend you deem the current scope of the project problematic. For reservoirs, you can generally do away with some of the WP:LAKES#Article_structure, but this is also true for some natural lakes. The structure isn't necessarily ideal for lakes of different scales and other type (Lake#Types_of_lakes). The suggested article structure section can obviously be expanded. -- User:Docu

As one of the main authors of Serpentine, the "early day Disney World" referred to (incidentally not formed with "piped in water from who knows where" but by a damming of the River Westbourne), I can't see what the problem is. If a landslide had blocked the river and caused the body of water to form we'd have no problem classifying it as a "lake", why should things be any different just because the blockage was pushed there with a bulldozer? – iridescent 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Our Lake article notes that there are an estimated 304 million standing water bodies worldwide and it is douptful that over 90% of these bodies can be considered lakes. It is clear that such doubtful bodies of water are more than just creeping into the Project. Furthermore, it is also clear that the Project cannot possibly handle mllions of such entries and would look foolish in attempting to do so! It has been suggested by a number of participants that a new Reservoir, etc., category would be appropriate. I am simply suggesting that this be done sooner rather than later to avoid the further generation of articles (however well written) on bodies of water where it is highly questionable if the subject is a “lake”. In other words, let us avoid the old technical arguments as to what constitutes a lake and have a new category for Reservoirs and purely Artificial Bodies of Water. Far be it from me to suggest that we should not accept a beautifully written 20 page article from the Disney Corporation on how many D9 Cats it took to construct Typhoon Lagoon! Can’t we accept H.D. Thoreau’s word that Walden is a Pond? Do we have to have a Stub calling it a lake?Lake Central (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that totally separate projects would be too small to be viable, and there's so much crossover; to most people other than geologists, there's no substantive difference between an artificial reservoir and a naturally formed lake. Maybe the sensible way to go would be a WP:WikiProject Bodies of water (or something...) with subsections for oceans, rivers, lakes, ornamental features, reservoirs etc etc etc; that would keep them separated out, in the same way that, for example, WP:UKW covers both rivers and canals. If the bot that's going to create substubs on every named geographic location ever gets approved (it's currently under discussion) there will be thousands of these articles appearing, and I agree with you that it's better to decide now how they're going to be classified. – iridescent 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely separate, water-based Projects might indeed not be viable. Your suggestion to revise the Lakes Project name to something more comprehensive, and then set up various “sub-Project” categories, is quite realistic. Certainly, a number of participants are already uneasy about the inclusion of reservoirs, etc., in a Lakes Project (somehow, the mental picture of an artificial body of water, surrounded by barbed wire fences, replete with armed guards, does not convey the thought of a “Lake”). Furthermore, you are certainly correct that the advent of a Sub-Stub generating Bot would totally overwhelm the Project as it is presently constituted. As much as one may admire Capability Brown and the waters he created in his landscaping efforts for the aristocracy, we already have an article on him and we surely do not need an additional 175 articles on each water. Unfortunately, it is not easy to come up with a comprehensive Project name which is as simple and elegant as “Lakes Project”. Perhaps something like the “Water Environments Project” would be acceptable. The key would be to have a number of well-defined Categories in the Project which would realistically address the concerns already expressed by various participants. An initial list would probably include: Oceans and Seas; Rivers and Canals; Natural Lakes; Reservoirs and Major Artificial Waters; Water Parks, Ponds, and Landscape Waters.Lake Central (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the advantages of such distinct projects?

As I understand, you don't like privately owned natural lakes that are used as reservoirs in the same project as e.g. Lake Michigan, but besides placing them in the separate projects, where are the specific advantages?

As Wiki is not paper, you shouldn't worry about too many topics to be covered. -- User:Docu

Somehow, through a glass darkly, you have come to understand that at least one participant is unhappy with the direction of the Project. Of course, a simple perusal of comments would indicate that many participants are less than pleased and are advocating entirely separate Projects such as Reservoirs, etc. What advantages are there in resolving these issues? Why what advantages are there in resolving problems in any volunteer organization? Most particularly such an organization that relies on a collaborative effort! It is a matter of record, and everyone is aware of this elephant in the room, that the Lakes Project did not envision the inclusion of a artificial New York City reservoir, virtually encased in concrete dams and abutments, surrounded by barbed wire fences, and controlled by armed guards! The engineers and others who are enamored with such manifestations are clearly not interested in collaborating with those involved in working with articles on the Ojibwa’s Gitche Gumee (Big-Sea-Shinning-Water), the Grandfather of all lakes, Lake Superior. Let’s support the troops, my friend, and keep everyone happy. It would be nice to keep this matter within the broad outlines of the Lakes Project by having a small number of sub-categories that participants would be confortable collaborating within! And let me say finally, my friend, that even as a native of San Francisco, it is difficult to share your view that, why worry about bandwidth and server time, the great hippie from above will provide!Lake Central (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific problem you encountered? It's the nature of Wikipedia that there are always article one is more interested than others. You are not required to edit any articles just because they are part of the same Wikipedia or WikiProject.

If you are interest in lakes of Ontario, the fact that there articles about lakes elsewhere should prevent you from editing a second article. Once there is series of such articles would could consider creating a working group "Lakes of Ontario". -- User:Docu

Yes. Well, ah, thank you for your articulate and reasoned response. Lake Central (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A further thought (after a couple of days away). Provided Fritzpoll's bot doesn't move on to bodies of water (at the moment, it's going to be tied up for some months creating 2 million+ substub articles on every village in the world), the "300 million bodies of water" argument isn't a problem; only those lakes/ponds/reservoirs/whatever that have something worth saying about them will ever be written. (Sticking with Serpentine as an example, as it's fairly well known and seems to embody the problem quite well - while there may be doubt about how to classify the article, there's no particular doubt that it warrants an article.) 99.9% of those 300 million lakes, even if they do get written about, will either be sections of articles on their respective national park, irrigation project etc, or will just be entries on List of lakes in Western Australia, A-C etc etc. (While there's a longstanding principle at Wikipedia that "named geographic locations are always notable enough for an article", it's not a principle I personally agree with.)

I do agree that we ought to be having the "does this only cover natural lakes?/do we only cover bodies with wave action on the shoreline?/what do we do with all the reservoirs, ponds etc?" discussions now, before the bot completes the villages. If nothing else, it will help formulate the arguments against the bot moving on to create 3 million {{topography-stub}}s, most of which will never be expanded. – iridescent 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 791 of the articles assigned to this project, or 15.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it here. Let's see what it does. -- User:Docu

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Do and Lakes Needing Attention

Can the two lists be merged into one? and Can people/bots creating such lists please indicate where they are at? I am guessing that many people have a "geographic preference" or at least familiarity with working on lakes in some areas and not others. In general, I works on lakes and rivers based on watersheds:

• South-Eastern and South-Central Alaska draining into the Pacific Ocean
• Northern Ohio draining into Lake Erie
• possibly other areas in the Pacific North-West draining into the Pacific Ocean
• possibly certain areas near South-Western Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire

The above areas are based on my current geographic location(s), areas I prefer of where I am familiar with/have lived, and travels (relatives and friends). I can help with certain limited things about lakes in other U.S.A. (probably Canada as well) areas:

• Figuring out what an unambiguous name is, help with GIS/coordinates, help mapping watersheds (what connects to what).

LeheckaG (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help!

Hi, I'm pretty new to WikiProject Lakes, and have recently been creating a few Oregon lake articles, and I just started this one. But for some reason, the infobox isn't working. I wasn't sure who to ask, so I'm just asking here. Could someone please help me out? Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Nesting the references into the infobox template was confusing MediaWiki; I've removed them. You'll need to re-add them into the body text itself. – iridescent 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. LittleMountain5 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5000 articles with infobox

Today, July 26, 2008, we reached 5,000 articles with the infobox. 2300 also have photos, 3950 coordinates. -- User:Docu

[edit] List to add redlinks to

I gift you with List of lakes in Maine, a list of 2,390 lakes in Maine that are both 1) named and 2) larger than 10 acres in surface area. Roughly 20-25 of them have existing articles. Please figure out which ought to have articles and create appropriate redlinks. Disambiguation will be necessary - there are 30 named "Long Pond" for example. So having someone process with a script might be useful. As the page is 127 kilobytes long, I won't be upset if it gets further sub-divided. GRBerry 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxbow in Connecticut

Hi, I noticed this article being created today: The Oxbow (Connecticut river). It needs help, and this project looks like the right place. thanks. ccwaters (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Lakes

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in your gallery, specifically Image:Dynorwic.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review requested for Lake Tahoe

I have asked for a GA review of the Lake Tahoe article. The request is currently on hold since the article has some significant but addressable problems. Since this article is a part of this project, maybe some additional editors can address the problems identified in the GA review. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguating

I just moved Lake Sacajawea (Washington) to Lake Sacajawea since no other Lake Sacajaweas popped up in the search, but then I just found out there is another Lake Sacajawea in Washington. The one is in Longview, Washington, while the other is a reservoir created by the Ice Harbor dam on the Snake River. But I don't know if y'all have a proper way to disambig the titles for same-named lakes in the same state. I'm not around here these days very much, so would someone want to take care of this? Thanks, Murderbike (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Tcharvak or Lake Charvak?

Lake Charvak is an artificial lake in Tashkent Oblast, Uzbekistan. It is covered by the article Lake Tcharvak, which uses the French transliteration Tcharvak instead of the conventional and more common English transliteration Charvak. The reason is historical: the article was created in April 2008 around a great photo of the lake, which came from a French source and accordingly referred to the lake as Tcharvak (Lac Tcharvak.jpg). Of course Lake Charvak redirects to Lake Tcharvak, but I still find the principal name awkward and possibly against Wikipedia naming conventions. My suggestion: move the content of Lake Tcharvak in its entirety to Lake Charvak and create a redirect from Lake Tcharvak to Lake Charvak. Is this acceptable? Please discuss below. --Zlerman (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. feydey (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Much appreciated. --Zlerman (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources?

Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody check out the string of recent edits to Monroe Doctrine? Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Problem

I would like to thank the many fine editors of the Paudash Lake site. During 2008, there were several months during which this site set the record for the number of different editors collaborating on the article! However, I regret to note that this site was trashed on December 20th, 2008 by a wholly irresponsible individual. The so-called rationale set forth for the vandalism was, of course, preposterous. The site has been restored, however, we are dealing with a malicious individual who my strike again. Should you find this site has been trashed, please revert the site to Lake Central, as of Dec. 22, 2008. This individual has been sent the following notice:

I have received your message attempting to justify your behavior on the basis that “it is not acceptable to use words such as "spectacular" and "fabulous" and "beautiful" in a Wikipedia article”. Let us examine this interesting statement as regards geographic articles like Paudash Lake, shall we?

Turning first to our worldwide Wikipedia Headquarters in San Francisco, we note in the Wikipedia article on the city (which is rated as a Featured Article) the word “fabulous” is in the fourth paragraph. This is followed in the article by such words as “splendorous”, “ostentatious”, “flamboyant”, “grandeur”, “zany”, and the ever popular “legendary”, as applied to a rather sleazy rock promoter. As regards commercial promotion, there is the comment that “the decision by Virgin America to base its operations out of SFO reverses the trend of low-cost carriers opting to bypass SFO”.

Moving down the pike a bit from Headquarters, we now turn to the Wikipedia article on Yosemite National Park, which is also rated as a Featured Article. Here, in the very first paragraph, we find the word “spectacular” Furthermore, this is not the only time the word is used in the article. There is, of course a nice commerical promo that states “The park concession contract is now operated by Delaware North Companies "Parks and Resorts" (the official concessionaire name in DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc.).

Let me remind you that a “Featured Article”, our highest rating, is one which has “been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". Oh, and do you recall that the San Francisco Wikipedia community founded Wikipedia and continues to run the organization and its computer servers? But then, again, perhaps you don’t think to much of our American cousins. Perhaps you are like your Hamilton and south shore area politicians such as Sheila Copps and Carolyn Perrish whose ghastly public comments on Americans are not something that I would wish to repeat on a Wikipedia site.

So then, let us turn to a Canadian Wikipedia article on a site in your area which is rated as a “Selected Article” on the Canadian Portal, is a “Featured Article” in Europe, and a former “Featured Article” in North America. The article is on Niagara Falls and most certainly contains the word “spectacular”. It contain “spectacular” more than once, as well as a lot of "beauty" comments, such as “renowned both for their beauty”. Frankly, the commercial promo plugs in the article are simply too numerous to mention!

During 2008, Paudash Lake was one of Wikipedia’s most successful sites. As you either know, or should know, for several months during the year, the site set the record for the number of diffenent collaborators who edited the site. Now, you have used the excuse that “it is not acceptable to use words such as "spectacular" and "fabulous" and "beautiful" in a Wikipedia article”, to justify your trashing of this site which so many Wikipedians worked on during the last year. You, madam, are either a liar, a fool, or both.. Your disgusting, malicious, behavior is what is unacceptable. Lake Central (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.115.158 (talk)

[edit] what to do with sub-lakes of Nechako Reservoir??

Please see Talk:Nechako_Reservoir#Sub-lakes_and_arms.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Project Banner

Would anyone mind if the project banner, {{Lake project}} was converted over to use the WPBannerMeta template. I've done a sandbox version, {{Lake project/sandbox}} which you can look at to see what you think. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates format

Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43.12° N 79.34° W) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! --GregU (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Announcements

I've got a bot proposal to reinvigorate the announcements page, but I could really do with some real information. What measure do you prefer? Infobox Lake perhaps? Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about featured articles? 1 - 10 - 100 - 1000 - 10000?  ;)

Anyways, for now, I was using infobox lake. -- User:Docu

Cool. If we assume featured articles are all listed in a set category, it's a cinch. p.s. if you support the project, or have any general comments (either +ve or -ve), post them to the link above. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There aren't that many featured articles yet. Maybe good articles and above could serve as a milestone at some point.

Anyways, for now, I prefer infoboxes rather than project banners as the later could be placed on any page marginally related. -- User:Docu

Might the project consider agreeing to take part in any trial / actual utilisation of the bot? If yes, here's the page. Cheers! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I added two requests. -- User:Docu

[edit] Galleries and missing images updated (February 2009 data)

The gallery with the image in the infobox at WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries was updated. The update was made with live data of today.

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. -- February 1, 2009 -- User:Docu

[edit] Naming

The current section on Naming doesn't provide much information. Have any more specific rules developed by now? Please join in the discussion at WT:NCGN#Mountains, rivers, lakes.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The current solution at WP:LAKES#Naming works well. I think we should keep it. -- User:Docu

[edit] 17 February 2009: 6000 lakes

Today we reached 6,000 articles with infobox lake. 5000 articles were reached on July 26, 2008.

At least 2850 articles are with image and 5400 with coordinates. -- User:Docu

[edit] Badger Pot/Pigeon Pot, Northern Ireland -- not lakes

This article (Badger Pot) seems to have been incorrectly tagged as a lake-related article -- however these pots are actually caves, and not lakes. Is it OK for me to remove the WP Lakes template from the talk page? Thanks. Fattonyni (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No response to this as yet, so I'll assume I can remove the templates. If there is disagreement, please feel free to revert my edit. Fattonyni (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It was probably added as the article was in a lough category. -- User:Docu

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:20, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Funtense - Uvala

I am currently working on Funtensee and am wondering about the term Uvala which according to answers.com might be used in English as well as in German. I just to want to make double sure. It is the complex of two sinkholes that grow into one combined system. Agathoclea (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Finger Lakes portal at Peer review

Portal:Finger Lakes is currently undergoing a portal peer review to assess input prior to Featured portal candidacy. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Finger Lakes/archive1. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. A portal with a "selected lake": cool ! -- User:Docu

[edit] Finger Lakes portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Finger Lakes is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Finger Lakes. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

I'm going to add the {{infobox protected area}} to the header, but I also want to add {{Infobox lake}} to the body. I'm working on filling out the protected area box, but can someone help me out with filling out the fields for infobox lake? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please double check it. Infobox lake isn't ideal for wetlands though. -- User:Docu 10:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR for Lake Burley Griffin

I have nominated Lake Burley Griffin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes of Peru

There is a large number of new stubs on lakes in Peru. Unfortunately most of these stubs don't tell us more about them than the name of the lake and that they are located in Peru. es:Categoría:Lagos del Perú doesn't have more information either and my first search wasn't successful. I'd be glad if they would be expanded (adding at least their local name and the department or province they are located in). -- User:Docu at 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

For man made lakes/ reservoirs (and others which have formed in very recent history), I've added two date parameters to {{Infobox lake}}: date-built (which should be that date construction started) and date-flooded. Both can use {{Start date}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This was just reverted, with the edit summary "discuss on talk first". Since there is no such requirement in WP policy, and since there have been no objections here yesterday nor today; and since the parameters are already in use on articles; I've restored the parameters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad that Docu seems to prefer to edit war over this matter (and, as an admin, to do so after requesting protection for the template in the middle of a dispute, when it's clear that I'm not an admin), rather than joining discussion here, to which I have already referred him. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised Docu would take the tool route. He's about as big of a tool as the route he's taking. LOL!!

Docu has just returned, and immediately begun edit warring to remove one of these dates, again. Additional opinions would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spotted Lake

Spotted Lake is a small, salt lake near Osoyoos. One can see it from the highway as they pass by... you can stop on the side of the highway to get a long look at it but it is on private property though so one cannot get to the lake shore. Someone did anyway & I would have but I had little time so I didn't. It was amazing though; the person WALKED ON THE LAKE! I never thought that was possible. The concentration of minerals & salt or so great here that you can walk on the lake. How this amazing location does not already have an article on it I do not know.

I will do some research & then I will make it's stub... I got pictures too & a video I found on Youtube of it. Lately, I've been kind of lazy & doing research I've just put off. I have to break away from this bad habit! AndrewEnns (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotted Lake evaporates in the summer and the minerals crystallize (hence the "spots"); if you saw this recently, what you saw was almost certainly someone walking across the dry salt flats. Even a pool of molasses wouldn't support a person standing upright without some kind of snowshoe arrangement to spread the weight, let alone salt water. – iridescent 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I was there recently. Have you been there? You seem to know what you are talking about. Anyhow, it's a pretty cool place. AndrewEnns (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is Spotted Lake an alkali lake?

Skookum said it is probably just an alkali lake. Is that true? That does seem logical. AndrewEnns (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not expert on the topic, but according to Alkali#Lakes, alkali lakes are a type of salt lakes. If true, and if Spotted Lake is an alkali lake, it would not be wrong to say it is a salt lake. The salt lake page suggests that such lakes may contain high quantities of minerals other than salts--although salt minerals are key. A quick bit of googling made me think Spotted Lake can be called either an alkaline or a salt lake (though not the only one in BC, as the Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia points out). See, for example: Roadside Nature Tours Through the Okanagan, p. 35: "...Spotted Lake, a striking alkaline pond...". Spotted Lake, Osoyoos Lake Water Quality Society: "...contains one of the world’s highest known concentrations of minerals: magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts), calcium and sodium sulphates, plus eight other minerals and traces of four more, including silver and titanium." Okanagan Grasslands: In Depth, Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia: "Saline Lakes...White Lake on the plateau west of Vaseux Lake and Spotted Lake west of Osoyoos are two special examples of the saline lakes found in many grasslands across the Okanagan grasslands region. White Lake usually dries out completely, exposing the white salt-encrusted basin; Spotted Lake has a cover of circles on the surface typical of a concentration of magnesium sulfate." Spotted Lake, MINFILE Mineral Inventory: [lots of salt and brine]. Pfly (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Pfly... wow, that is a lot of info to fathom. Okay, well, tomorrow I'll get tarted on the article. In it I will say it is an alkali lake simply because the majority says so. If we find reason to doubt that, we will change it. Anyhow, it is a pretty cool place & White Lake sounds pretty interesting too. AndrewEnns (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another Spotted Lake question

I'm currently about halfway done making my page on Spotted Lake. I found one site that is really useful & am using it as my primary reference. However, I do have one question. The spots on the lake... what are they? Are they leftover water? Are they minerals that simply don't harden regardless of the weather? What are they? I'd like to make sure the article says what they are. Does anyone know? AndrewEnns (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox lake: new properties

I have added to {{Infobox lake}} the properties:

• Managing agency ({{{agency}}})
• Designation ({{{designation}}})

As proposed and included in the sandbox some time ago. Please see the template's documentation for details or Belvide Reservoir for examples. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Green Bay statistics on area are wrong

The current entry on Green Bay (off Lake Michigan) states its length as 120 miles, its width as 10-20 miles, and its total area as 186 square miles. This is clearly wrong (e.g., with a length of 120 and a width of 10, the area would be 1200 square miles).

P.S. I've never tried to make an input to Widipedia, so my apologies in advance if I've done this incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.108.16 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)