# Talk:Llanishen Reservoir

A quick query re some of the "verification" that is being used to support some of the statements on this page. I see that a link to "Walesonline" is being used. I have to say that some of the content on there is not balanced too say the least. I expect that the same can be said of most news agencies, however Walesonline and its sister publications are part of the campaign against the proposed development. I would therefore suggest that walesonline should not be used to verify statements on this page. That appears to me to fit with the Wikipedia ethos.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobby10 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 

Isn't Wales Online the website of Media Wales (ie the company that owns the Echo, Western Mail etc)? I think I've used it when it's reproduced an Echo article. If that's the case it should be fine. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wales Online is basically the South Wales Echo & Western Mail, just on the internet. ANd for the record, there are much more references from the Guardian and the BBC than there are from Wales Online, and they're all telling pretty much the same story - does make them all dubious sources? - Happysailor (Talk) 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello all present. I am adding some images in of Llanishen reservoir, and am creating a Lisvane Reservoir article (I had been thinking of renaming this to Llanishen and Lisvane reservoirs - but I think we are best with two articles). I had been planning to extend this article when including the images, but as people are working on it at the moment and I have little time to edit at present, I'll let people carry on. If I get some time soon I will join in. Some of the images I am placing at the bottom I intended for extended sections - feel free to move them around, and don't worry about having too many images - it's all relevant given the debate over its future. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About time we had some images. I did go looking for some but couldn't find any on Commons. I've been trying to expand the article as neutrally as possible recently despite some unsourced additions :) - Happysailor (Talk) 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll try and work on this tonight as I've followed the story and I can see there are still a lot of omissions. I'll add in detail before citing, but am reasonably sure of the facts. I'll correct any mistakes when I source. Fortunately there are plenty of sources out there. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Do you have a source for when the reservoir ceased to be used for water supply?  That needs to be added in somewhere. (Mickday100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

It looks like you found a ref that gives a general overview of the time it ceased to be an active reservoir. It would be good if we found one that ties it down though. The closest I have found is one that states it ceased in the 1970's - Happysailor (Talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Happysailor - I'll keep looking!  A question .. The photograph described as showing "visible destruction" doesn't show any destruction ... Just rubble in one corner that was underneath the water the whole time.  If it was destruction where did the rubble come from?  I've had a look and there aren't any obvious holes... (Mickday100 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Clearly, the whole exposed surface is being busted up by weeds and bushes! I have close-up shots of clear damage if you want them, but please let us not get into arguments over obvious points. I wonder if you seen the reservoir and what your interest is in it?  I would love it if we could all be open about where we stand on the redevelopment issue. It's not an obligation on Wikipedia (where secrecy is sadly often all but encouraged), but it ultimately can save a huge amount of people's time (if time is wanted to be saved that is). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Another question.  The history thing may be unverifiable, but the environmental impact assessment is a key source document - why do you keep deleting it? (Mickday100 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Mickday, I have removed the Environmental Impact Assessment, not because it may or may not be a key source document, but because it was hosted on Google Docs. Google Docs is not a valid source for references, or external links due to it's nature (which is that anyone can upload anything to it - i.e. self published) as per WP:ELNO and WP:SPS.
If the Assessment is hosted somewhere official I wouldn't have a problem with it, however because of where it's hosted, it makes it unverifiable as any document could have been tampered with. I have consulted some other editors on this subject so it's not just my opinion. Happysailor (Talk) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the wording of the article that matters most - the sources should back up the text. On the subject of deletions, why take out accurate information on WPD's takeover of Hyder (you are simply wrong to suggest it was incorrect), and replace it with "WPD acquired the reservoir as part of sale of Welsh Water to Glas Cymru, the not for profit organisation that operates Welsh Water for the benefit of its customers."? WPD acquired the reservoir from Hyder and sold it to the new company Glas Cymru, with a proviso that they could buy it back if they needed to - ie if they ever got the planning permission to redevelop it. Glas Cymru is just extra detail - it shouldn't replace or obscure the WPD buying Hyder and its assets (Wales' larges employer at the time), esp as the Welsh Assembly opposed the takeover as they were worried about the American owners not doing the right thing regarding British people. Funny old world. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This article simply has to be properly written-up and cited. We must avoid the Wiki-nightmare of people with opposing agendas jostling over tiny window spaces, and edit-warring over restrictively over-concise sentences. We need a strong and well-balanced article here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Happysailor - now I understand!  Apologies, I didn't realise (Mickday100 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC))
Matt - I've cited everything I've added (admittedly after some education from HS) - so I don't understand the problem (Mickday100 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC))
Matt - apologies I thought I'd replied on the Hyder point but must have done something wrong.  I thought about leaving it in but it seemed too long winded to say something like (better put) " WPD bought Hyder in a recommended offer after a competitive and hostile takeover battle.  Hyder was Wales' largest company and owned a number of businesses including Welsh Water and Infralec, the South Wales electric distribution company.  Welsh Water was sold to Glas Cymru the not for profit etc and as part of the sale the reservoir and other assets were sold to WPD by Welsh Water. "  WPD own it because they bought it from Welsh Water as part of the deal with Glas, as demonstrated by the source doc, and it was an integral part of the sale - the rest is not really relevant to the reservoir itself.  I could get proper sources (not just local press reports) and put it back in if you like, but won't that be a bit long winded? I mean, its about the reservoir, not WPD (Mickday100 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Worrying about being long-winded over important detail should not be a pre-editing (or deleting) issue here - it's the wrong 'frame of mind' for Wikipedia, really. The main facts (ie PPL/WPD aquired Welsh Water with its reservoir as part of the Hyder purchase (Welsh Water being owned by Hyder), and then them selling Welsh Water to Glas Cymru while keeping a buy-back option on the reservoir) all must be included, and any prose refinement can come later. That WPD aquired the res from Glas Cymru is relevent of course, but on its own it's the paper without the wall. And I wonder why the "not for profit" aspect of Glas Cymru is so relevant when Hyder isn't? PPL/WPD has always had a hold of the res, and the Assembly's concerns regarding their move for Hyder I think are relevant to the article. I'm an experienced Wikipedian and believe me, the content problems on Wikipedia nearly always happen when people try to contain (and often enforce) non-simple matters into over-concise (and often over-conclusive - due to 'verified source found!!') sentences. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
hank Matt.  I'll find some decent sources and put something in.  `however, `i can find no reference anywhere to the "buyback option you mention, and if `i put in the assembly concerns I'll also need to cover whether those concerns were justified.  I am not an experienced Wiki,  but surely it should be objective and based on facts, and we shouldn't use it to impugn someone's motives by innuendo.  Also, the first reference to the sailing school as a source for saying how good it was isn't about Llanishen, but to the Bay, and the second sailing reference (the Volvo one) only mentions what's happening now rather than the quality of the sailing school at the reservoir - shouldn't these be replaced with references that support the content? (Mickday100 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Ive just added another source which states when the sailing centre achieved their volvo status and one about the class of sailor the centre was producing. The first ref although mentioning the bay, I know all the schools learned at LLanishen Resservoir and the event was held there only to tie in with another event - we just need to try & find a source for it, Happysailor (Talk) 07:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about bias, it will all come together as a collaboration. There are plenty of reliable sources out there in print and on the web - it's just a question of finding the time to find the ones that will stick. Local papers and campaign sites are fine, by the way, if 'better' (ie more direct) sources are not available. The main thing that sets back Wikipedia is when people make too many edits against each other (generally called 'WP:edit waring' - Wikipedia doesn't like too much information-switching and admin tend to 'lock' articles when too many people contravene the WP:3RR rule), but hopefully that won't happen here. Right now the article is very much 'pro' the redevelopment - partly because LLanishen RAG and the many criticisms aren't even mentioned yet. The criticisms, or the council's (and other proposed) plans for the site (or other local developments and traffic issue for that matter) have hardly been addressed at all. WPD expect the council to sell them some of the Nant Fawr corridor for the town-facing feeder road, but the council has other plans for the area. Many of the points I made on your talk page will find there way in here, as well as a public domain map of the area showing the proposed development in a little more 'telling' detail than WPD do themselves: Walkers who use a major and highly popular Nant Fawr walk leading to Lisvane (the walk bordering Cyncoed/Rhydypannau and Llanishen) will be expected to cross a new busy road feeding most of the expensive 300 houses. How many cars is that? And the 'wildlife area' would be tiny and near so many cars and houses that the birds of prey etc will simply not use it. Why should they? The Caerphilly ridge is to the north so why would a bird go where WPD wants it to? The area has a rare balance of people and wildlife, already threatened by the almost intollerable amount of traffic the same area of Llanishen is getting now since the acres of ex-MOD land on the western side is being developed (a problem for all those in Llanishen) - the redevelopment would kill it it and it is something priceless that no city can ever get back. The housing ladder in Lisvane, Cyncoed and Llanishen (as important an area as anywhere in Wales) would be serioulsy effected too, not least the credibility of the Welsh Assembly.
As you are new to Wikipedia you might be interested in these guidelines and policy (I'm sure you've read about some already): WP:WEIGHT and WP:red flag are keys to objectivity. Finding Verified Sources (WP:V) underlie everything, but they must be filtered through perspective and objectivity. That applies whatever point of view (see WP:NPOV) you hold - not just the opposing one. Finally, there is no space limit on Wikipedia: what's relevant gets in, providing there is WP:consensus to do so. People sometimes WP:Wikilawyer over different guidelines, but actual consensus is extremely powerful on Wikipedia, which is why the service of time-served editors is so invaluable, especially as sometimes new accounts can 'pop up' at convenient times (the fear with this is 'WP:sockpuppetry'). Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Matt.  A bit of the history has been added - bit more to go in about Assembly cncerns etc - I'll do the research on that this evening.  I take your point on concerns and will try to get those in too - but when I read the Inspector's report that seemed to deal with them - although I guess they should at least be aired properly! As should the assembly stuff from 2000. (Mickday100 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

By the way Mickday - I'm not actually requesting you to anything! (just so you know). You of course can edit how you like (and if it's good I'll appreciate it), but as I've said, I'm not planning any more of my own edits until I'm happy with how they are written and I have the right cites along with them too. I am of course planning a number of revisions/additions.
No 'inspectors report' has dealt with the matters btw - that's partly why it's gone on for so long and got this far. It's been a patchy zigzag process for WPD, but all the windows will close for them in the end, and lawyers will cash their cheques and close up the books. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Matt.  At least we know where you stand!  The public enquiry did take a huge amount of evidence of all of the issues you raise - for example on ecology the inspector goes through it in paragraphs 212 to 249 of his report, and other issues are dealt with in the report .  Anyway, we're trying to write a factual, objective entry so I guess this isn't the place for massaging either of our prejudices... so lets just make it the most objective and factual entry we can :)(Mickday100 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
I've added a paragraph on Assembly concersn - apologies for all the edits, keep getting the syntax for references slightly wrong.  The reference (note 13) is really detailed, but although it was free when I first looked at it they now want payment - which I don't understand - I'll keep looking for a free one to make sure as many as possible can read it as it really is a nice piece of work(Mickday100 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

A nice peice of work? It's interesting how well you know the report I must say. I stand with everyone else in Cardiff - mine is not a marginal view in any shape or form. I prefer to be open and honest about my position when I edit in Wikiepedia, so maybe we can stop that "Thanks Matt" now, yes? The people to go to about ecology are ecology experts and what is in front of your eyes, not the narrow focus of a particular 'inpector' choosing to compare the 'crab apple' of the "significant ecological benefits" of certain 'miniture-wetland' wildlife (really?) the reservoir naturally doesn't already have (who the hell asked him to do that? What an absolutely insulting imposition!) with the '24 carat orange' of the priceless asset of the whole reservoir and connecting Nant Fawr and all its wildlife - for the sake of a - ahem - report. Perhaps he's looking for a job with Tony Blair. There are a host of counter opinions from eco agnecies/groups.
Did the 'enquiry' cover the huge traffic problems in LLanishen? Other housing/indsutrial developments in Llanishen (which possibly next to Cardiff Bay will be the most developed area of Cardiff since the MOD land sell-off)? Proposed developments to the east of the reservoir? The extent of the damage to the Nant Fawr corridor with the new road, which people of the area (working with the council) have put a huge amount of work into. Did it address that LLanishen police station in the village (a reasonably-sized building which has always had a large carpark out of the back) now has a police car going (sometimes rushing) in it or out of it literally every few minutes, as it has become a hub for various areas? Did it address that many of the pavements in Llanishen are very hard to walk (some are narrow simply to create the roads we have), and the roads can be impossible - or simply too dangerous - to cross. Not good for an ageing population. There are disabled people around who can't cope too. Round the corner from me a centre-road traffic sign was knocked down over a week ago, and it hasn't been replaced simply because they know it will be knocked down again in no time at all. There is still rubble around the gutters from the time it got knocked down before last (it lasted about a week). And that is despite people's complaints about them not clearing up. We cannot manage what we already have traffic-wise, and the one good thing we have is the northerly Nant Fawr and LLanishen Reservoir (we are a rainy country known for its beautiful reservoirs (often called lakes) - it's actually part of our heritage). So leave off the "Thanks, Matts" (it's 5 now and we've not agreed once) - we both know exactly where we come from, and where we stand.
How many cities have a green corridor like the Nant Fawr through them? It is a renowned Cardiff asset, and one of the reasons people remark how beautiful Cardiff is. For a big wide road to bend through and bisect it for no other reason but to line the pockets of an American utility and those in its coffers? There is plenty of available new housing in Cardiff, and plenty of available of space to build even more - even in other parts of Llanishen. We are simply all saying "no" to building on the reservoir. Did the report address the fact that the public (let alone the council whos land it is) actually do not want their parkland redeveloped? It was just a report.
The Assembly cannot afford to lose this one in Cardiff - why else would the politicians be so up in arms? And believe me - I live here. There is every chance of a fatal traffic accident either on Rhydypennau Road or Llanishen village within days of it opening (even supposing they fill half the houses). The traffic and roads in the area really are that dangerous and congested. LLanishen (originally a village outside Cardiff) was just not designed for what we already have going on right now. The people of Cardiff have to deal with traffic accidents - PPL (the American owners, who are very much part of all the dealings) will never have to give a damn. We have enough on our hands dealing with the issues we already face without the absolute madness of replacing our great asset - the biggest (and most beautiful) open space in a district that according to national guidelines is actually short on parkland - with 300 multi-car houses and two feeder roads. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the Welsh translation ('Cronfa Ddŵr Llanisien') as Llanishen Reservoir is an actual name, and I've never seen it presented in Welsh as such, or can find a non-WP instance using Google. As far as I'm aware, the Welsh language info box is for either Welsh-only names or terms, or for where there are legitimate English and Welsh instances on a name or term in common use. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted that the Images section was, without any warning, completely removed by someone to apparently make this article suddenly qualify as a Wikipedia 'Good Article'! The deletion was hidden in a text edit - people just don't notice this totally unexpected/unreasonable kind of action! This article was - and still is - full of imbalance, and it actually is no way up to GA standard, or whatever would reasonably pass as one in the real world. First an foremost, it's a content issue - which is why people need to know about these things.
Why didn't the editor who made this move inform any of the contributors here of his intent, or at least leave a message on here about going for GA status? I find the whole GA cult that seems to have taken over Wikipedia absolute madness. People don't seem to focus on content - they seem to take it as a given that the text passes muster (on Wikipedia of all places) - and I'm convinced that all they want to do is collect those damn green dots to embellish their user pages with.
I'm replacing the images section now, along with some new pictures. GA or not - there is nothing at all wrong with a decent images section for an area of historical significance, visual beauty and scientific interest like this - it's an entirely welcome thing to have. Honestly - as much as anything, how ruder in Wikipedia terms can you get than just deleting an images section, esp within a copy edit! "ce per GAN" indeed - where is the GA nomination then?? Decent images are actually the one thing people find it difficult to give to WP. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I can find no evidence of a GANomination, or even any discussion on it at all, I've removed the GA tag. If anyone wants it done, it has to be done properly. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've put a number of images back in. I can see now that galleries have become a thing of the past, so I'll be moving the relevant images into the text as it develops. Can I ask for a small amount of patience? At least the article now has a picture of it fully drained (as it has been now for nearly 6 months now), and with a fence around it (which it has had for what - 6 years?)
I attended the Reservoir Action Group AGM today (an entirely full school hall - over 300 people I would guess), and really this article doesn't scratch the surface - which I did know to some degree (I've just been off this crazy place, and I never dealt with the content here I saw played with by one man with the possibly plainest vested interest I've seen on WP), but I had no idea of various - including recent developments. Apparently the group (which has a very large membership) paid out £80,000 to a barrister for a couple of weeks work in the past, and is planning to spend around £40,000 soon - so we need to make this article legally sound, for obvious reasons.
This article claimed that "some local people" are against the development(!) - courtesy of course of the transparent SPA guy - but I can promise you that 99% of locals (and otherwise) who hold any kind of opinion on these kind of matters are 100% against it for a host of reasons, and because the site sits between three of Cardiff's most wealth areas (including its two most wealthy ones), these people have never been out of money, or have been over the past 10 years. People are embarrassed by Wikipedia, but the feedback I got at the AGM was that they want to see a sound article. I asked them for more clear sources, including of opinion, which is of course like gold dust here.
I am very sore at not being notified of the almost-invisible GA nomination (either by my talk page, email or via this flipping discussion page - what went on there?!!) - where only 1 contributor seemed to be in attendance - but would rather focus now on producing a properly weighted article, along with the Nant Fawr and Lisvane Reservoir ones I've been taking pictures for they past 6 months or so. The pictures are less important - but the GA status has to go for the time being, for legal reasons as much as any: this is a huge deal in North Cardiff and amongst the Assembly in general, and so this article will need to be watertight - esp now I've highlighted its presence. Hopefully we will see some new interest in editing here soon too. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, three things - first this article went through a full GAN process to reach GA status. In fact it's the first thing listed on this page.
Secondly, Image sections can clutter up a page. There is already some images (would the article benefit from more, probably and anyone is welcome to add more or edit existing ones) however there is a link to commons which is the more recognised way now to link to related images. (WP:NOTIMAGE) The original gallery was removed by request of the GA reviewer.
Thirly, I can't see this 'full of imbalance' that your talking about - there may be bits where it can be improved still (such is the nature of wikipedia) however ive been involved with the reservoir for 23 years (and not for WP) and while you talk about a properly weighted article, it MUST be neutral to the subject {WP:NPV} which is what so far has been attempted to get to.
Oh, I apologise about not notifying you about the GAN, however since you weren't on WIkipedia for 5 1/2 months (at least by edits) would you have seen a notification? The article does need work again with the most recent updates about what's been happening, however fullscale changes are imo not needed without discussion - Happysailor 06:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You didn't notify anyone about the GAN. One of the reasons I hardly looked into Wikipedia for that length of time was because 'Wikpedians' like you are capable of going through GA processes almomst entirely by themselves with nobody else connected to the subject (or likely to be knowledgable about it) involved in it at all! Not even a request. Accuracy is supposed to be based on collaboration here. "Awesome"? You might know about sailing, but you know little about the reservoir - which hasn't been sailed on for several years now. You had a picture of boats, and none of the fence or the drainage, which btw they have not started to re-fill as originally promised - only part of the info that is needed. And also I was busy for that time - but that's that damn 'real world' thing again.
I'll put the article through the GA-removal process - it gives out entirely the wrong signals as it stands and you ought to appreciate that, despite the obligatory barnstar and GA user box you've 'earned'. Shame I can't get the patience I asked for re the images - but at least I've bothered to actually take them and put them up in Commons, which takes flipping ages as I suspect you know. Your lazy 'undo' to replace the GA status and remove the Images section has also removed the pictures of the surrounding fence (which never should have gone in the first place!) and the fully drained reservoir, which is what the subject is mainly about now. It is essential that you replace these whatever else you do. And August 19th to Jan 29th was not 5 1/2 months (more like 5), it was sanity - as I always see when I come back. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you, but i'll correct you on a few points. Sailing was taking place on the reservoir in March 2010, so hardly several years, more like one and secondly, three editors edited the article extensively during the months prior to the GAN, and the only work I mainly did during the GAN process, was adding references to statements that were unreferenced (as you can see was the predominent problem with the article according to the GAN reviewer). Thirdly, the subject is not mainly about the fully drained reservoir, it's about The Reservoir, not just what is happening now but it's history (and the future). Yes what is happening now is important and should be reflected in the article (which Ive already said needs updating?). And lastly, 5 months and 10 days is closer to 5 1/2 months than 5 months. :) - Happysailor 17:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Granted, with the sailing I actually had my mind on the fishing permits (of which there are actually non-copyright b/w photos around if no-one has a more recent one - of people fishing that is). The sailing certainly seemed to be reduced from as it remember it of old, although I do remember the res as being quite full of boats on a number of occasions in the past. Jesus, you are even right about the dates - though I think it's just a wee bit pedantantic to look at rounding upwards over 10 days into a month! I did think I edited WP at one point within that period, but obviously I decided not to do it. I actually want to see the article cover a much wider scope than it does, including its historical place in the network of Welsh reservoirs, not to mention the Nant Fawr Corridor of course. There will enough textual content to filter in all the photos that it needs I'm sure.
Unfortunately I left my booklet at the AGM (I had to leave early), and I need to contact a few people too, but I'll start to make edits of some sort tonight. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

wales online article says this has been bought by welsh water. EdwardLane (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Construction of the reservoir started in 1882 by the engineer James Simpson for the Cardiff Waterworks Company". James Simpson's major works finished in 1864, with the construction of Lisvane Reservoir. He had a son, James Liddell Simpson, who did some civil engineering work while his father was alive, but I can find no reference to Llanishen, and it was built by Cardiff Corporation, who bought out the  Cardiff Waterworks Company in 1879. 
I have also added a {fact} templete to the length of the dam at 1,173 metres. I cannot find a source for it. There are lots of websites that quote 1,173 m, but most of them can be traced back to Wikipedia, and I have not found one that looks authentic. The ICE Engineering Timelines website quotes 1.5 km, and that is the only authoritative value I have found so far. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose merging the articles related to both Llanishen and Lisvane reservoirs together. As they are collectively the same body of water.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.219.50 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)