Talk:List of lakes of Wales

message: Some questions and issues:
#Should we adopt a minimum size for a lake (c 1 acre ?) - otherwise the list could run to many hundreds ?
#Is ordering by Unitary Authority appropriate ? - all in one long list would be unhelpful and I can't think of an alternative scheme that provides some geographic context.
#I think that alphabetical order is useful within Unitary authority area, but how to arrange such a list ? Alphabetical by the principal nominator seems about right (i.e. ignoring words such as Llyn, Pwll, Lake, Reservoir etc.).
Views and opinions welcomed. Velela 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three make sense I think. Rhion 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that even unnamed lakes should be included as "Unnamed lake at...". Looking at the Llanelli wetlands site even at a scale of 1:10000, no names for individual water bodies are listed (see her  ) Velela (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventions and naming of lakes

message: I am not expert in these matters, but why do the sortable tables have different widths when all the parameters seem to be similar (save that there are 5 columns in the UAs list and six in the NPs list)? Can anyone fix that? cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been an issue, to my knowledge, since at least 2006 and probably earlier. At that time every county except Gwynedd conformed to the standard table layout but despite many editors' efforts it stayed resolutely inconsistent. I suspect a hidden template somewhere. If you could fix it, that would be wonderful!  Velella  Velella Talk   09:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Velella Take a look now - had to do some adjustments to the % widths and then, importantly to the amount of text in particular columns. cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks much better! Thanks .  Velella  Velella Talk   12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable tables 

message: I noted the addition of this section by  and its subsequent removal by . My (too hasty) instinct was to remove it again - but you'll note that it's still there - I reverted myself. I would agree with Velella though in that in this addition, too much attention is given to matters which are better dealt with elsewhere and not in this list article. Some list articles do outgrow themselves, accruing more and more material to them and become rather unwieldy as a result. There is scope for adding to material in the relevant individual reservoir articles and there may be scope for a new article attending to the wider matter (which is undoubtedly a political one in part) of the exploitation (a term itself which can be viewed through a practical lens and a political one!) of parts of the Welsh uplands for providing water supply to parts of England. I note at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Reservoirs_in_Wales that there is no list article for Reservoirs of Wales nor indeed a regular article on the subject and I think one may be merited. That would be a place to set out, with appropriate references, the political dimension amongst other things.
 
diolch / thanks Geopersona (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - I whole heartedly agree. I have real concerns about the recent addition for a number of reasons. Firstly that this is a list article which should be restricted to list items and a minimal amount of text to explain the key aspects such as the largest lakes list. Secondly, the content is inaccurate and incomplete in several different aspects but it most notable by those reservoirs not included such as  Llyn Brianne, Llyn Cwellyn, Llyn Clywedog and many others. If there is perceived to be a need to identify those reservoirs associated with water supply, then that is already provided in the table.Thirdly, the choice of reservoirs and the text suggests that this about a political agenda of Welsh water being exported to England.  In my view, a technical article like this is no place to promulgate political views no matter how valid or how strongly felt. Wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. Some of the individual reservoir articles such as Llyn Celyn do quite rightly have text relating to the political and social controversies but in my view this article is not the place for airing such views. For the record the River Dee system has been exporting water to England since about 1804 when the Ellesmere canal started functioning as an aqueduct (which continues to this day)  as well as a transport canal with its abstraction at Horseshoe falls. The current arrangements also supply much of NE Wales with Dee water so even the Dee system is not just about exporting welsh water to England.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted anything remotely possible to be conceived as 'political', although they are true facts, in the hope that  agrees to view this as a compromise. 'Individual articles on relevant reservoirs' is fine for such text, but an overall, rough brush is needed as to how much water is take from Wales and used in England. That is encyclopaedic, and contains no bias in any way. Re  'lists should be restricted to list items' - I see intro text above many subheadings, therefore surprised you make this an exception! Nothin wrong with a short intro, you'e done so yourself elsewhere. If other lakes are not included, then please add them! That's no reason to delete the remaining list! Good addition by John. John Jones (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 's mention of 'wrongs' is irrelevant. Who says that building these reservoir's was the wrong thing to do? The text added by myself certainly didn't and was totally apolitical, with no fingers pointing at any one. I suggest that you yourself have a political motive, that you don't like including unpalatable facts like these in an encyclopaedia, as you most probably are English yourself. That's your problem. Take your bias and politicising elsewhere. As regards your suggested lakes, Llyn Brianne, Llyn Cwellyn: they  weren't built for the purpose of supplying water to England, and shouldn't therefore be included in the list. Indirectly, Llyn Clywedog does, and you can decide whether to include it or not. The second criteria could be the amount of water abstracted, but personally, that only clouds the issue.  The context of these lakes is important and by deleting the context (actual examples) the raison d'etre of these dams has now gone. I do think background info is relevant.  Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very relevant addition to the list. These are lakes, a sublist of lakes grouped by (1) construction (2) they all supply England with water. Not including this list will be seen as censoring factual and unbiased information and totally against Wikipedia policies and ethos. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we not all here to help contribute to and thereby improve Wikipedia as a source of reliable (that's to say referenced) information for others ? I am and I suspect all of us who are party to this conversation are - so please let's assume good faith on each others' part and not ascribe motives or opinions which others may not have. Whether we are English or Welsh (or Afghan or whatever) is of no concern; what matters is the common endeavour of improvement. Cell Danwydd - I'd be surprised if Vellela (as an experienced editor of longstanding) saw these as 'unpalatable facts' - but it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a list article might not be the best place for some of this material. If I were simply a 3rd party, I would come to a list article like this to find a limited amount of info and would hope and expect it would then spin me off in other directions to find more detailed information on specific items in the list, and perhaps to some other general articles that considered things related to groups of items in the list - such as reservoirs as a subset of the lakes of Wales. I'm conscious that we each of us bring our own perspectives, indeed our own biases to the party - none of us are without them, but we can try to recognise them and act accordingly, and collaboratively. As to 'background info' - isn't that best placed in the article on a specific waterbody? I'm minded to flesh out the redlink article-in-waiting on Welsh reservoirs - much interesting background material can be added there which each of us can usefully contribute to. diolch / thanks Geopersona (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 's preamble that we should assume good faith in Velella's unnecessary deletion. However, lists do not need to contain 'limited amount of info'! And deleting correct lists, stating that the list is 'political' can not be justified like this Geopersona. And the length of this article does not either justify the deletion - it is in fact less than the average list article on the English Wikipedia. I also disagree with you that an explanatory piece of text is unnecessary. It's a good thing. It tells readers what binds the group of lakes together. The preamble has been cut down to the bare minimum, so are you referring to the subsection 'By unitary authority' - which has 5 sentences, all unreferenced? Lastly, the 'experience or longstanding'-ness of an editor (!) on Wikipedia does not justify his action. Cell Danwydd has created over 20 times more new articles than Velella (268), and that too is irrelevant to whether the list should stand or not. It stands on its own merit. It exists in the outside world, it will exist in this list article on Wikipedia, regardless of the wiki-persona of the editor! John Jones (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I have started putting together an article on Reservoirs of Wales which can include all of this material - it strikes me as a better location for it. Anyone looking for the why's and wherefore's of reservoirs in the country could in time find the relevant information there. It's for all of us to contribute to make it useful. And there's plenty to be added as regards the politics of water should we wish to - I had intended to put the useful material which Cell Danwydd had assembled into that space. As to refs for the list by UAs, most of those sentences don't require refs - they are simply setting out what the page contains to aid the reader, rather than imported facts - but I've added a ref for the reservoirs which straddle UA boundaries, since you mention it. Please improve it if you can. diolch / thanks Geopersona (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very happy to contribute to the new article in any way I can. I believe that I have visited almost every reservoir in Wales and would be willing to to try and provide reliable sources. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   07:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent and positive contribution, ! I did the same on the Welsh WP yesterday. Your new article will provide relevant background to this list, which I've now rehashed in the same format as the others on this list. Both will complement each other nicely imho. Date of build, abstraction (in m litres / day) etc could be added at a later date. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Croeso / You're welcome! I'll try to add more myself, by and by. Geopersona (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of 'by supply' section