Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron

message: I have to say that almost every version of this article makes it abundantly clear that the concept of "Lake M-H" is generally, if not completely, restricted to certain specialised fields.  Therefore the continuous fighting to insert and remove disclaimers and words that might support some fabled "real world" attempt to have them classified as a single lake all seems rather pointless. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the problem here is the belief that even in the fields in which it is found, they don't really mean what they say. That's not just a qualifying statement, but a fundamental disagreement in interpreting our sources. (We had similar comments earlier by another editor, that "if only they hadn't used the word 'lake'", all this misunderstanding would have been avoided, because they of course are not / can not be a lake.) — kwami (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Somewhere earlier on this talk page I said I thought the use of phrases like "hydrologically/hydraulically one lake", found in many sources, was largely an acknowledgement that although normal, ordinary usage is of two lakes, physically they are one. "Hydrologically" means something like "in terms of water". "Hydraulically" is a bit more technical but comes down to the same thing. The qualification is not because they are not one lake but because they are so overwhelmingly thought of as two, and it is very useful to speak of the two parts, whose names are Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. But "in terms of water" they are one. That's how I understand it anyway. Pfly (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it the same way. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm stupified that such a simple misreading can cause such a kerfuffle. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: "However, long term average flow through the Straits is eastwards at around 1,500–2,000 m3/s (53,000–71,000 cu ft/s),[14] in keeping with the main inflow to the system from Lake Superior through St. Mary's River in the west, and the main outflow through the St. Clair River in the east.[15]"
This statement is almost complete nonsense.    It would make some sort of sense if St Mary's River flowed into Lake Michigan,  and the water outflow of Lake Superior then had to flow through Mackinac Strait into Lake Huron and eventually Detroit.   However,  St Mary's River flows into Lake Huron,  not Lake Michigan,   and therefore,  the outflow from Lake Superior runs into, and then out of,  Lake Huron  and never has to go anywhere near Lake Michigan.
The long term net average flow eastwards through the Mackinac Strait come entirely from the net inflow from streams and rivers into Lake Michigan,  and the rain and snow that falls directly into Lake Michigan.   The flow from St Mary's River has nothing to do with it.Eregli bob (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it depends on St Clair being on the Huron side, not on St Mary. What about, immediately after fn [14], "as the main outflow is the St. Clair River in the east"? — kwami (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes and no, because the main inflow is still Saint Mary's from the higher elevation of Lake Superior and the outflow is Saint Clair to the lower elevation of Lake St Clair. Thus, for example, it is understood by scholars that damming on the St. Mary caused the first modern recorded decrease in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron in the late 19th century. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement, as it stood yesterday,  insinuates that the net eastward flow through the Mackinac Strait,  is because of that flow though the strait includes the flow from the St Mary's River in the west,  to the St Clair River in the east.  The person who wrote this clearly thought that the St Mary's River flows into Lake Michigan,  or has a problem understanding the purpose of the english language phrase,  "in keeping with".  Obviously,  a flood into Lake Huron,  from any cause,  would cause a corresponding flow into ( or out of ) Lake Michigan,  but would not be the cause of the net annual flow out of Lake Michigan.Eregli bob (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to the extent it "insinuated" anything I take it that's been cleared up?  The St. Mary's is the primary inlet adding to the mass of Lake Michigan-Huron, the more mass, the more it will flow through the outlet -- and the more current and hydrogen bonds pulling downstream.  Upstream is in the west, downstream is in the east. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is, other than gravity, nothing significant is pulling, only pushing. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Well sure, but a flood on the St Mary would cause a westward flow into Michigan. It's not like water entering from Superior sucks the water out of Michigan. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It's gravity that does any manner of "sucking" but to the extent that the water from the inlet carries the water to the outlet it does move it all along, in a manner similar to sucking because the Michigan-Huron basin has no other main outlet, for its main inlet. Friction and hydrogen bonds do "the sucking." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I think you're right, regarding the sentence construction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I split it, with a note asking anyone who disagrees to revert me. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, though we omit the reason the average flow is eastward. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just making the little change.    Feel free to do more. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Rearranged and reworded a bit. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical statement 

message: The lead sentence reads,  (my bolding). Since the subject is a name, i.e. a word or phrase, it should be italicized. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO having both bolding and italics is overkill. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, since bolding and italics serve different purposes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting: . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeing with North8000 on this one; it does seem to be overkill, even if a case can be made that it could be semantically correct. Unlike film titles, lake names aren't typically italicized. Imzadi 1979 →  23:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The film title example is just that, an example. My point is that MOS:WAW applies wherever a name is mentioned as a name. It's an instance of the use–mention distinction:  The first sentence is about the lake itself, while the second one is about the name. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS is not a policy.  It itself says that it's just "attempt to follow" and that there will be exceptions. For me this is a minor issue, but it's still good to make sure key points get into the discussion. And IMO when portions of it put together come up with overkill, that certainly qualifies.  North8000 (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence was changed just a bit ago, from its long-standing version.  The old way was better, as the article is about the water body system and not about the name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I agree with Sangdeboeuf's concept and overall view but mildly disagree with the their formatting end result.  IMO this article is really just about the name or concept or the "lens" for viewing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.  It also covers the reasons (e.g. closely connected hydrology between the two lakes) for sometimes using that name/lens.   Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are fully covered elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The topic of this discussion has been the italics. You are introducing a different new (disputed) potential change away from the long standing version, in essence removal of the "name" terminology. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The long standing version was the version I reverted to.  The topic of italics only arises because the long-standing version of the first sentence was changed. (Sandebuef's comment already introduced precisely in this discussion the difference between the two sentences, one about the name (which is the 'new' sentence) the other about the concept (which is the sentence this article had for most of its history.) None of the article is about the name, there is no etymology, no discussion of the name at all in the article.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than characterize, I'll just provide the details.  "The name" text (which you are deleting) has been in since November 2020 and prior to that it was not.   Let's just decide here and implement what we decide.   I lean towards having "the name" and no italics, but could be happy with it either way.  Considering them to be a single lake is a novel and unusual concept not supported by sources.  Even the centerpiece source for the argument merely combined the two for brevity for and only when talking about levels because they have the same water level. I think that "the name" wording avoids using the voice of Wikipedia to elevate it to something else.  IMO the topic of this article fails wp:notability and would be better covered by a few sentences in the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan articles. And most of the content of this article is a duplication of what is in those articles and Great Lakes articles. But IMO a short article focused on the concept of considering them jointly and the name that arises from that concept is also fine, but it should be limited to that.  North8000 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Afd or merge position was rejected by consensus in 2012.  This should not be another Afd/merge discussion.  Further details on this wording history, the pre last-November long standing version wording ("is the combined waters") was proposed by editor Pfly in this talk page discussion and implemented by consensus in September 2012. Since the article does not discuss the name, we should go back to the prior consensus version, obviating italics. (In actuality, it's only your OR that there is some silent subtext issue in using the hyphen-portmanteau, otherwise find RS that state that subtext. (There is no such subtext)  I do not believe there are any RS on subtext, and no other RS on the etymology, so Wikipedia can't/won't have article text on the word itself. Also, I don't think its a real argument - there is no reason to argue, hydrology describes a physical real world phenomena, and brief wording for concepts is what happens in the world -- it's not hard to reconcile and understand a world where the is Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan-Huron, any more than it's hard to reconcile and understand that there is Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and World Ocean, all able to exist at the same time because people have several useful ways to examine things. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not proposing to AFD this, I was making the case for confining this article to the things unique to the two lakes view rather than duplicating things covered elsewhere. And an opening sentence that supports that.   My arguments are what they are and are not dependent on creation of any "subtext" issues, whatever you meant by that.   Also "OR" refers to something in article space.  Normal talk page conversations would almost all be OR if put into article space so please don't try to put that scarlet letter on my talk page discussion. This was regarding your comments on my post. Regarding the overall questions, I've made my points and will be fine with whatever is decided. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence format