Talk:List of lakes by area

message: why lake nasser not in the list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nasser
it is largest man made lake   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.194 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lake Nasser

message: How is "List of world's largest lakes" an article in and of itself? Should it not be merged with the article on 'Lakes' in general?  Hulces 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the Lake article would be too long if this is merged there. It is a good idea to keep list articles separate, so the main articles are more compact. Also consider how the River article deals with the issue by having a similar separate list, List of rivers by length. No need for a merge. P.S. I created this article. feydey 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge. This list is similar to a large number of other lists on Wikipedia and doesn't need a separate justification for its continued existence. Rmhermen 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[lake]]?

message: Should we add a list of largest lakes of each continent, or does that belong elsewhere? If it belongs here, can someone who knows how to use these tables add this?
*Africa - Lake Victoria
*North America - Lake Superior
*South America - Lake Titicaca
*Central America (not a continent, but still...) - Lake Nicaragua (second largest in Latin America, first in central)
*Europe - Lake Ladoga
*Asia - Caspian Sea or Lake Baikal if you don't want to include seas.
*Australia - Lake Eyre (rarely fills).
*Antarctica - Lake Vostok (Subglacial lake)
:Hmmm, I ran quickly a check on the data You gave and found  a lake not in our list, Lake Maracaibo in South America. I'm wondering why it isn't in our list? Should it be etc. When this is cleared up, then the by continent list should be added to the article. feydey 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this list to the lake article, which states:
Note: Lake Maracaibo can be considered as the largest lake in South America. It however lies at sea level with a relatively wide opening to sea, so it is better described as a bay. --Lethargy 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lake Maracaibo may belong in this list, but we'll need to check out some more sources first. One more thing: should we add this list to this article, keep it in the lake article, or both? --Lethargy 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps both, and also the top10 largest lakes could be added to the lake article, like in the river article? feydey 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By Continent

message: This article doesn't seem to follow the de facto naming policy for geographical lists; for instance List of countries by area, rather than List of world's largest coutries. (Admittedly that article actually has a more complex name, but the principle is there.) Especially in the case of lakes, 'biggest' is ambiguous (does it refer to area, length, depth, volume?). I propose a move to List of lakes by area. Hairy Dude 00:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this "de facto naming policy for geographical lists" given? feydey 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Hairy Dude -- this article's name should be normalized to List of lakes by area. Citynoise 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: It is necessary to add the following lakes: Lake Taymyr, Qinghai Lake, Khanka Lake. Yuriy75 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The offer on addition

message: It is Lake of Poyang, not Dongting, which is on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.240.230 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The largest lake in China 

message: Is there a reason Lake Toba isn't on the list? 1,130 km3 would be 17--68.9.117.174 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a reason - it is far too small. The smallest on the list is 4,190 km². Phizzy (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lake Toba]] 

message: As Yuriy75 has mentioned long time ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Taymyr should be on the list. The above article gives its area as 6,990 km².  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.46.22 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake Taymyr 

message: The Aral Sea was down to 17,000km2 by 2004, and had shrunk ~ another 40% by 2007. This area is now divided between three lakes, so it's likely that none of them meet our minimum area. However, I haven't been able to locate any exact figures. The SE basin might belong on the list, but we need a reference before including it. kwami (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aral Sea 

message: Looks like they're missing a lake! LAKE OKEECHOBEE in Florida.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.207.39 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's too small.  This is a list of lakes greater than 4000km² - Ookkeecchhoobbee is only 1900km² Bazonka (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgot a lake? 

message: There has been some disagreement on whether how the Caspian Sea should appear in the various lake lists, so I thought it might be good to try to get some consensus on how to approach the issue. I started a discussion here and would welcome contributions. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That pesky Caspian Sea 

message: Saimaa has a surface area of roughly 4,400 km2. - G3, 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's the Suur-Saimaa or Greater Saimaa in english. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saimaa, the 4th largest lake in Europe.. 

message: There seems to be some problem with sorting by Maximum depth. Khanka (10.6 m) orders between Tanganyika (1470 m) and Vostok (900–1000 m). The problem is probably related to the fact that 10.6 is the only fractional value in the column. I guess changing the value to the range 10-11 m would avoid this problem, but 10.6 m seems to be just the exact value, so this would not be appropriate. Sharkb (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways of forcing the ordering. One is used on Moons of Jupiter, if you want to try it out. Meanwhile I'm reverting your "corrections" to the South Aral Sea, which are completely off. kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your hint. I managed to resolve the sorting issues in a couple ot attempts. As for the area of South Aral Sea, the article says it is 5000 SQ MILES, not km2. I have verified the source. Please revert the size to 13000, unless you can find another source, in which case we should change the value in the lake article too. Sharkb (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The south sea was 13,000 km2 in 2007. It has since split in two, and the larger, eastern basin has essentially disappeared. Check out the photos from this year: the eastern basin is a wet spot draining into the western. The western basin is less than half that size, and 5000 km2 is probably about right. At least, that's what it's expected to stabilize at. kwami (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reference for the South Aral Sea's claimed 5,000 km2? Its article says it's only 3,500 km2.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite all the press about the shrinking Aral Sea, I've found it very difficult to get data on its surface area. I've written to people working on it, but haven't had an answer. kwami (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 

message: *Lagoa dos Patos in Brazil
*Garabogaz Aýlagy in Turkmenistan
*Ozero Taimyr in Russia
*Lake Gairdner in Australia
*Lagoa Mirim in Brazil with 62.250 km²  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.220.255.10 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  some possible missing items 

message: Referring to the Caspian Sea, the article states: "Geologically, it is a small ocean." However, it doesn't state a definition of what an "ocean" is (as opposed to a sea or lake, etc). Since the Caspian Sea always comes up in the discussion of "lakes," it would be good to include at the beginning a comment about the qualifications of being a lake and why certain bodies do not qualify.
Similarly, in regards to Michigan-Huron, what does "single body of water" mean? What is the qualification? Is it about having a sufficiently large connection between them (e.g., instead of a river, and if so, how large/wide does it need to be)? Is it about being at the same elevation? Is there a requirement for consistency/circulation (water chemistry, species of fish, etc., see Southern Ocean article--just because two bodies of water are in contact with each other doesn't mean they should be considered a single body).
It seems reasonable that if information that goes against 'normal' or traditional thought should be justified and explained within the article. I don't see a benefit of stating such things but leave the readers on their own to figure out what they mean. 99.185.9.0 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We could direct the reader to the articles, where these things are explained, rather than repeating ourselves. That would make changes and maintenance easier. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined terms 

message: I found the statement "Geologically, the Caspian Sea and Lake Maracaibo are oceans" to be somewhat confusing. I think we should treat the two differently as Maracaibo is still attached to the ocean and is thus *today* not truly a lake whereas the Caspian Sea *was* connected to the world ocean 11 million years ago. Although the Caspian Sea may be better modelled as an ocean for study, water movement etc due to its vast size, most references refer to it as a lake (when under discussion), and I've added a number of these (NASA, Britannica, the UN and so forth). I've never seen a publication say it's not a lake, and lake and sea are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, I tried to clarify this a bit by adding citations. Macgroover (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight expansion of intro 

message: Since it is now confirmed that there are lakes on titan, should this page be inclusive of only lakes on earth or all lakes known to man.XavierGreen (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it sort of implicitly means lakes of water on earth. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Plus I doubt we know their sizes well enough to include them. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion Criteria

message: *Largest lakes of the former USSR, Water Quality Assessment of the Former Soviet Union(1998) 
*The world's largest lakes, Encyclopedia Of Inland Waters (2009) 
*Great lakes of the world by lake type, Physical Geography: Great Systems and Global Environments (2012) 
*North America: Physical features, The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge (2011) 
*http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/largestlakes.htm "Largest Lakes in the World" About.com
None of these list Lake Michigan–Huron. Many of them put the Aral Sea in the rankings. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice sleuthing! I have added them to the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Published lists of largest lakes

message: The edit warring and arguments over Lake Michigan-Huron eventually resulted in many new eyes on that page, many new, good sources, and a general page overhaul. Although it could still be improved in various ways I think it is pretty good and well sourced. A while ago there was some warring over whether it should be included in this list, right? I don't think it should because it is not widely mentioned and would probably just lead to further edit warring, or at least the risk of reader confusion. But it does seem worthy of mention as a footnote. To that end I've added some info and a link in the most unobtrusive way I could think of. I thought of putting the info in the "notes" field of Lake Superior, but even that seemed overly obtrusive. So I made a "note" in the notes field, with the info way down at the bottom of the page. I also added a number of references—perhaps too many; just through I'd put in the clearest ones. If it's too much definitely trim it down. Pfly (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been strongly against putting the M-H combination in this list, but 'way down at the bottom in notes could do the trick. I'm still firmly against any sort of mention that is visible in the table part of the list. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good way to handle it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. DanHobley (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it down a bit, added the cited area, and put it in the notes section with all the other notes. (That's what that column is for, after all!) It's not obtrusive there, but neither is it hidden. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

text: That's not how the article is currently organized, though we can put the notes at the bottom if people like. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

text: My endorsement was not meant to be an exclusive endorsement. Actually, kwami's version makes sense and avoids having a whole Notes section just for this one point. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added kwami's adding of the size of Michigan-Huron, but left the info as a "note in the notes field". I don't care much whether it is done this way or that way, I just don't want to see more fighting. Pfly (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross-linked to the ranking, where it's relevant as a footnote. (Orphaned notes independent of the text don't make much sense.) — kwami (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion we should be more consistent about how we deal with lakes that aren't really lakes.  At the moment we have two lagoons and a reservoir mentioned before any of the genuine lakes (with rankings that are probably wrong since the demotion of Michigan-Huron), the Caspian Sea included in the ranking but in its own section, ephemeral/variable lakes in their own section but not listed in the rankings, and Michigan-Huron hidden away in the notes section, which means that readers have to look in four different places if they want information on all of them.  I'd like to see three classes of thing - genuine lakes, listed in the table and given a ranking, slightly dodgy lakes, listed in the table and given a ranking but with something in the notes column to explain why it might not be considered to be a real lake, and pseudo-lakes, listed in the table, not given a ranking, and with something in the notes table to explain why they're not really lakes at all.  I'm basing this on List of countries by GDP (nominal), which seems to work quite well.  Note that the lists on that page include things like the European Union, which nobody is suggesting is a country, so we really shouldn't get too worried about including something like Michigan-Huron as a pseudo-lake here, especially as we have a notes column to explain why it's not really a lake.  Of course, the concept of "pseudo-lakes" does bring back the relevance of notability that I was dissing earlier (that is, we should include all real lakes that are above the threshold, but only notable pseudo-lakes)Armouredduck (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no single official definition of lake or even area of a lake (each varies) so I think that we should not take any rankings here too seriously. Probably the best definition of a lake is that society (e.g. mapmakers sources that refer to it) generally considers it to be a lake.   IMO it's just a roughly-in-order list with those various caveats noted. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we specifically exclude reservoirs, there shouldn't be any. But I agree that something can be listed more than once according to different conceptions of it. And the ranking should probably be deleted, since once you get to the point where readers can't count easily, the number becomes largely meaningless anyway. We've removed the ranking column from the list of largest languages for just that reason. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not for any double listings.  De-emphasizing the numerical ranking is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan-Huron again 

message: I think the derivation of the lake areas in the list should be cited somewhere within that section (e.g. at bottom of the table), and it ought to be made clear which sources have been used. I would suggest that potentially the 5 sources given in the 1st sentence of the article, be moved to within the list section as these presumably form the basis of the figures, although it would be useful to understand which source figure has been used. I had a quick look using the fact monster source and its top 10 lakes are in the same order as the article, and the areas are exactly the same (or very similar) with the exception of the Caspian Sea. Noting that 3 of the 5 cites are non-web, and depending on the similarity between the figures, would it be best to move 1 or 2 of the book cites to further reading instead?  Eldumpo (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure exactly what you are proposing.  I think that I'm the one who started putting cites by the individual data (but not rankings). When there is a question this is the most solid verification.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just trying to clarify the exact source that has been used for each of the area figures. It needn't involve citing each row separately; cite(s) at the bottom of the table should suffice. However, first we need to understand any differences in the sources, and decide which are best. Does anyone have any of the 3 books that are cited? Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to above, I think the list should be based on a particular (reliable) source, in order that it can be clear where the data is from. I don't think the two existing on-line links at the start of the page are particularly good sources, so would propose to use  , except it does only list the 20 largest. Any further views? Eldumpo (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for lake areas

message: Caspian Sea's entry has this note: *Not including Garabogazköl Aylagy.
The picture has it, though. And, if it is not included in Caspian Sea's area, then it should be included as a separate entry. It would place at #16 if its article is right. 82.141.74.167 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the area to the Caspian, as we do for all other bodies of water. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garabogazköl? 

message: I noted that "Lake Michigan-Huron" was re-entered.  It was first re-entered into the "List of Lakes by Volume" it was not mentioned in the edit summary, but it was in a September 2015 edit.   Just recently it was re-entered in this article with the stated reason being to make this article consistent with this one. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it shouldn't be ranked on the same list as Lakes Huron and Michigan separately. Cobblet (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even a lake. But I don't have the energy to get into a tussle again over this so I'm just noting it on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not to enforce an existing consensus without something new being contributed to the discussion, so I will revert the addition. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: I noted that "Lake Michigan-Huron" was re-entered

message: This article is missing a huge lake, Lake Onega, Russia, which is 9,700 km^2 in area. It even says, on the Lake Onega wikipedia article: "It is the second largest lake in Europe, and the 18th largest lake by area in the world." 
Also, P.S: This would be a much more helpful article if the list extended beyond 37 lakes and included smaller lakes, perhaps going until the lakes were smaller than 2,000 km^2. Another improvement would be to include reservoirs + man-made lakes, lagoons, and endorheic lakes, while specifying or labelling them as such, like it does with saltwater lakes. (They are lakes in name, after all.) Marwick42 15:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Important: Missing Lake!

message: I believe this list should be extended beyond the 4000 km² limit, so that it would be much more useful. I have myself compiled a list of the largest lakes under 4000 km² in area, and it extends to 2000 km². The wikipedia article List of rivers by length, is much more beneficial in that respect, including the top 181 longest rivers. Here is a list of the next lakes that should be in the list, with a limit at 3000 km²:
*Sarygamysh Lake: 3955 km²
*Dubawnt Lake: 3833 km²
*Lake Van (Saline): 3755 km²
*Lake Peipus: 3555 km²
*Uvs Lake (Saline): 3350 km²
*Poyang Lake: 3210 km²
*Lake Tana: 3200 km²
*Amadjuak Lake: 3115 km²
*Lake Melville: 3069 km²
--Marwick42 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you pretty sure that there are only about 10 in the 3,000-4,000 range? If so, sounds like a good idea to me. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: You missed the North Aral Sea. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Extension 

message: I have done more research, and I'm able to add 15 more lakes to the list, which would bring the limit down to 2000 km². The order of the lakes is as follows:
* Dongting Lake: 2820 km²
* Lake Khövsgöl: 2760 km²
* Tonlé Sap: 2700 km²
* Lake Kivu: 2700 km²
* Wollaston Lake: 2681 km²
* Lake Alakol (Saline): 2650 km²
* Iliamna Lake: 2626 km²
* Lake Hulun: 2339 km²
* Lake Mistassini: 2335 km²
* Lake Edward: 2325 km²
* Lake Mai-Ndombe: 2300 km²
* Nueltin Lake: 2279 km²
* Lake Tai: 2250 km²
* Southern Indian Lake: 2247 km²
* Lake Chany: 2000 km²
--Marwick42 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral on that.    Gotta stop somewhere!  :-)  North8000 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Extension 

message: Lake of the Woods is listed as having the most islands, "with around 14,632 in total."   This can't be the case, as Lake Huron contains the Thirty_Thousand_Islands.  How many islands are in this archipelago is not exactly known, as the number changes with the water level in the lake and also depends on what counts as an island, but there are certainly at least 30,000.  An expansive count could be much higher.  Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most islands of any lake, with around 14,632 in total.  

message: This list uses the area of the whole Bangweulu wetland, while the actual lake is a fifth of that in area. At the very least this should be clarified? Harsimaja (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the title is "Lakes" so I'd say that only the lake portion should count. North8000 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to the bottom. I don't know if it actually qualifies, since it's "about" the 3000km2 cutoff for this list. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangweulu? 

message: Great Salt Lake is not seasonal! While levels do fluctuate, so do many of the other lakes that did make the list. The dictionary definition of a seasonal lake is a lake that is DRY for part of the year. Great Salt Lake seldom drops below 4,000 km2 in area and its water levels vary by less than 100 cm over an average year.
By comparison, Lake Tana anywhere from 200 to 250 cm in an average year.
Lake Khanka is much more “seasonal” than Great Salt Lake. According to its Wiki page it “is highly variable” and ranges anywhere from 5,010 km2 to as small as 3,940km2 and seasonal water fluctuations average 200cm.
Lake Urmia is included on this list with an area of 6,000km2, but that was its historical high level which it hasn’t achieved in decades. According to the ESA it is currently 1/10th that area and shouldn’t even be on the list if you applied the same criteria you used to exclude the Great Salt Lake.
Qinghai Lake has fluctuated by almost 400 km2 over the last 20 years due to water level fluctuations up to .5 meters just from rainstorms. Again, if you applied the criteria used to determine Great Salt Lake was seasonal, Qinghai would also have to be removed from this list.
Van Lake has fluctuated by as much as 300 cm over the last 25 years causing its surface area to fluctuate. Again, if we are not using the dictionary definition of a “seasonal” lake, but making that determination based on how much a lake’s levels fluctuate, what is the standard. Is it the 100cm of Great Salt Lake?
Poyang Lake varies greatly in area and level between wet and dry seasons. (according to its Wiki page) In 2012, it was only 200km2 and unlike Great Salt Lake, Poyang Lake now comes close to drying up on an almost seasonal basis. Shouldn’t shrinking in size from 3,500 km2 to sometimes as small as 200 km2 on a seasonal basis qualify Poyang Lake as a “seasonal” lake. great Salt Lake’s seasonal fluctuation isn’t this drastic.
Just for reference for this discussion (according to its Wiki page) Great Salt Lake is approx. 4,400 km2 and is the largest salt water lake in the Western Hemisphere. It’s also the eighth largest terminal lake in the world.    
:Note by North8000: The above post was by 71.10.72.191    North8000 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that the "seasonal lake" exclusion is (vaguely speaking) intended to exclude lakes that would not meet the size criteria when they are at their lower levels.   I would suggest that this would be a good guide to use for this article.  This is just my quick initial comment; the poster didn't discuss what the "lower level" area of Great Salt Lake is and I'm just proposing a criteria rather than fully sorting this out. 01:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like  Great Salt Lake even at it's low point would meet the 2,000km2 criteria and some IMO it would be good to include it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Salt Lake missing from list 

message: Urmia's shrunk so much that, like Lake Chad, it no longer meets the cut-off. Removed to the end where we mention formerly large lakes. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At its greatest extent, it was [...] 2000 mi2. [...] By late 2017, the lake had shrunk to 10% of its former size [...] This dry spell was broken in 2019 and the lake is now filling up once again.
But that's filling up from ca. 200 mi2, or approx. 500 km2, 1/6 of our cut-off. That is, Urmia would have had to sextupled in size since 2019 for it to make the list. That's dubious, and I don't see any sources that it's happened. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

text: According to the USGS (Landsat 8 images), Urmia was sharply up in early 2019, but down again in late 2021. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Lake Urmia’s surface area has reached up to 2,917 square kilometers, indicating 1,582 square kilometers increase in comparison to 2013 when the Lake Urmia Restoration Program began.
So that's just under our limit, and it may have decreased since. (Conflicting reports.) If you have more recent data that supports returning Urmia, please provide. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urmia 

message: IMO he main reason for the existence of this type of map (non-distorted areas sizes) is of no value here where the objects of interest are shown as mere points.   It's also an abstract hard to read map. IMO we should delete or replace it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Jackdlwilson (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace Dymaxion map?

message: The whole newish section has lakes where inclusion and ranking is by "geologic definition". This is an unsourced implication that there is a single "geologic definition".   If there is some widely accepted and  "geologic definition" we should include exactly what that is.   Otherwise IMO we should not have that alternate section.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That objection can be handled by removing the word "a". — kwami (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did I think solves it. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Geologic definition?

message: On the Wikipedia page for this lake, it says it’s around 5,760 square kilometers (2,220 sq mi) in size Lake Rukwa Viktorvvv (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a lake (Lake Rukwa)