Talk:Water resource management

message: I plan on adding some credibility via  quality sources as well as do some edits to the more important parts of the article. I feel the article is not as up to date as it could be and some of the information may not be verified or incorrect. I welcome any comments or suggestions on additions or revisions that could be made.
User:Jam56-NJITWILL  —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions and additions to be made 

message: My mistake - the information wasn't actually removed, it was just pushed to the bottom of the page. BTW, Skirtania - you could consider creating an article on the conference if it's notable enough (having never heard of it before, I wouldn't know), but I don't think it's relevant enough to the subject of this article to be added to this page. It's a disambiguation page, so it's supposed to point to the different articles about water management, and the stuff you added should probably go on a separate article. --WPholic [ talk ] 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops! 

message: This article is seriously unbalanced and gives a very strange view of water management. The fact that the "See also" list is longer than the article is testimony to something very wrong. The latest edit I have moved over into the Water pollution article (on the discussion page for the moment) but the previous main edit re Agriculture and its use of water  is also greatly unbalancing without some major structural inputs to balance it. Any thoughts how we could get this into some sort of shape?  Velella  Velella Talk   22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in great need of improvement

message: This phrase, restored here, is an example of  a contributor's opinion; the original removal was correct. It's the restoration that's wrong and this should be reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - but I am very happy to discuss it here so that we can reach a consensus. The change was made without any attempt at discussion which Is why I reverted the change and restored the original version.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In an ideal world...rarely possible in practice." 

message: The content of this article has since the inception of the article, addressed "Water resource management" and little else. This is fine in my book since management of water supply, management of waste water both sewage and industrial waste-water are all dealt with existing articles. The current title gives an ambiguously large sense of what it might cover.  It is also noteworthy that the article Water resources covers very similar ground and it might be feasible to merge the two to provide a more complete view. However, that may be for the future. All I am proposing now is the name change to Water resource management. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The name change would reduce potential confusion. Merging the article with Water resources is worth exploring. Moreau1 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change

message: I am picking up on Moreau1's suggestion from 2012. Should we explore merging this article with water resources? Should we put up this question also on the talk page of water resources? If not a merger, should we move content from the article of water resources to this article, when it refers to "management" aspects? EvMsmile (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly support a merge from here into Water resources. There is considerable duplication and overlap. If there are some general management issues not already addressed, a small additional section could possibly be added. However having re-read both articles, I believe the merge could very easily be achieved . Might I suggest that if this does go ahead, that the work is done section by section so that it is relatively easy for any editor to be satisfied that no significant isdues have been lost in the merge.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, the article on water resources is already quite long. Would it perhaps make sense to take out the pieces that relate to water resources management and integrate them into water resources management? I notice there is also a whole long chapter on water stress there even though there is a separate article for that, too. Should we take this discussion to the talk page of water resources now? EvMsmile (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coming back to this discussion from 6 years ago: I am proposing again to merge this page into water resources. I've just done a bit of culling and condensing. I think the whole section on "agriculture" also needs to be removed and it's a hodge podge of issues, mainly around water scarcity, but not actually about water resources management (or when we merge it across we can sort out the content on agriculture). Pinging User:ASRASR. EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As there were no objections in the last 2 weeks the merger has now been carried out. EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with [[water resources]]?

message: I plan on removing the link for the "Data-driven urban water management & action" wikipedia page because it no longer exists. I am also hoping to find another article to replace that specific one. Emd02 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data-driven urban water management & action link