Talk:List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom

Comments

The surface area for Derwent Reservoir (13 on list) is an order of magnitude too small. Can the author please correct. Lake Brianne area also looks odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.253.221.44 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at this and it seems Carsington Water which would be roughly 16th in the list is missing completely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carsington_Water — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greboicus (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of water reservoirs in Wales

Following a revert of this page split, I have moved the page into a draft. Happy for this draft to be published? Thanks for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Titus Gold, Reservoirs of Wales exists, just merge it there DankJae 00:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Wales should be removed from here and the article split, staying neutral. DankJae 00:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose In the absence of any discussion and agreement, the original article should be restored and the proposed split discussed on the talk page of that, original article.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DankJae Yes good idea. I will go ahead with that. Think this page should move to England only. Titus Gold (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Velella @DankJae I have moved this page back to original title as requested. This page should be moved to List of reservoirs in England since water is devolved to Wales and Reservoirs of Wales already exists as noted by @DankJae.
    Happy for this to be tweaked to List of reservoirs in England ? Thanks for your time Titus Gold (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titus Gold, because Reservoirs of Wales exists does not necessarily mean this article has to be split either. Reservoirs of Wales was largely on the management aspect, but if any split of this article were to gain consensus, there would be little need for a separate article under "list of" as it can be at RoW. Not opposed to having a list there, but that does not necessarily mean Wales has to be removed here.
    Considering the lack of context, therefore relying on the sources, I assume this article exists because the source data for volume is of England and Wales. Therefore, not because of any water management reason, devolved or not, it seems to exist just because that is where data is available. This article's main distinction from List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom is the data available on volume. Therefore this article can co-exist with a list at Reservoirs of Wales. Not every England and Wales article/list needs to be split, each article's individual context must be considered. DankJae 20:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DankJae @Velella I've made a new proposal below based on both of your feedbacks. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal: List of reservoirs in England by volume and List of reservoirs in Wales by volume

There are plenty of sources that list reservoirs in Wales as an independent list. Water is also largely devolved and under control of natural resources Wales. The most appropriate step is a list for England and a list for Wales separately.

https://hwb.gov.wales/api/storage/67b49b6a-0370-4b52-8609-4287a029ea5c?preview=true

https://www.peoplescollection.wales/content/reservoirs-wales

https://www.visitwales.com/things-do/nature-and-landscapes/welsh-lakes-and-reservoirs-explore Titus Gold (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • '''Strong support''' for reasons above Titus Gold (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this article does not reference nor has scope on how water is managed, therefore irrelevant, largely "England and Wales" because of managing available data. A separate list is not needed, we do not need to split every England and Wales article or quadruple every UK list into four. DankJae 20:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - first thanks to Titus Gold for reverting to the status quo and allowing a debate to be had. My opposition is for two reasons. The political environment of geographic features is not usually significant. The fact that devolution in Wales has placed some infrastructure under a new control regime is not a relevant or valid reason to split geographic articles. The article Reservoirs of Wales is a discussion article with a tabular list at the end. There might be merit in merging that with the English equivalent but doing so would create a very large and unmanageable article. We also have a comprehensive List of lakes of Wales which includes all the reservoirs listed in this article. It would not be too difficult to add a column in the table in that article to indicate whether or not they are water storage reservoirs. I believe that we need to look closely at all these articles to try and avoid unnecessary duplication. In my view list articles should be wide ranging and provide an index for users to find more detailed information. The detailed articles should be based on logical geographic considerations whilst ensuring that no article is overly long. However, I would greatly welcome more views. Pininging @Geopersona: as another editor who has been much involved in the past.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evident justification of this particular grouping. Citation 1 does not have a URL. The Environment Agency covers England only. Natural resources Wales covers Wales only.
    The Welsh government independently lists reservoirs in Wales:https://datamap.gov.wales/layers/geonode:nrw_large_raised_reservoirs_registered_information
    Where's the England data? Titus Gold (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the sources choose to present data should not be a material consideration. Almost all Wikipedia articles draw from a range of sources, sometimes a considerable range. We should be considering how best to organise and present information for a reader of Wikipedia, including readers from across the globe.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles which have a bearing on this discussion currently include the following (there may be others):
  • List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom - a simple listing of artificial or dammed lakes in the whole of mainland Britain constructed for any purpose restricted to impoundments only (i.e those with a dam)
  • List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume -a list by name, owner, location (County) when built , volume etc. One single dominant source which is odd since Environment Agency doesn't cover Wales
  • List of lakes of England - includes reservoirs but for England only. Includes a table of the 7(?) largest by surface area. Un-sortable list organised by local authority area
  • Reservoirs of Wales an overview article including background information. Includes a table with images of some of the more notable reservoirs.
  • List of lakes of Wales - a listing of water bodies > 2ha in Wales, many of which are reservoirs constructed for a great variety of uses. Includes grid ref, area, local authority and status. Includes a short table of the five largest by surface area.
While some duplication is acceptable, having ostensibly the same information in several articles is generally not helpful. Curiously the List by volume only includes the 50 largest reservoirs by volume which isn't mentioned in the title. Neither is the omission of Llyn Tegid.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the citation URL for citation 1? This article's citation is not clear. Titus Gold (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the reply below, I know see now that you are querying the Environment Agency citation. This data is now held and curated by the UK Centre for Hydrology and Ecology who provide data downloads on request. I have obtained such a download and can email it to any interested user on request but I am unsure how to cite this in the article. The list is very comprehensive and covers the whole of mainland UK.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the citation to reflect the nature of the data. I have also consulted the help desk here and hopefully have reflected that advice in the citation. For the record, this is the same data-set previously help and managed by the Environment Agency, now assembled as a UK wide data-set.The data is consistent with this article for the few entries I have checked, but I will do further checks to confirm consistency.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have included Geraint Roberts authoritative book as an in-line reference. I assume that this is the citation 1 that you were querying? I have a copy at home in Wales and I know that other editors also have copies or access to copies. It is invaluable for all water bodies in Snowdonia . Once I am back in Wales I will link the same reference to all the information that it supports.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm querying the "Environmental Information Data Centre" reference. This is just a link to the website and no specific dataset. Since the data is not verifiable, and the article is heavily reliant on it, the article should be moved to draft until reliable reference is found. Titus Gold (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please the link to the help desk above which may help. This is the Government's authoritative data set which is managed by the UK Centre for Hydrology and Ecology and is the source of data quoted by all other Governments and government departments.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article moved to draft until verifiable citation can be found. Titus Gold (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

  • We have several articles with overlapping content.
  • There are several mentions of "Reservoir" but only one article attempts any definition of what a reservoir is.
  • We have access to a reputable data source from the Institute of Ecology and Hydrology which lists 273 entities as reservoirs of water in the UK, including structures such as the River Witham Flood Washlands. This suggests that we need a clear and competent definition of a reservoir.
  • The data source provides grid references and retained water volume for each entry. Each entry also has notes which usually identify the purpose, i.e Water supply, Flood Storage, Dock etc.
  • We have a number of other reputable sources which can support additional information about each reservoir and, in many cases, we have an article about many of them.

Now we need to work out how best this should be structured.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella, @Sirfurboy, once again TG created List of reservoirs in Wales by raised capacity which is basically the List of reservoirs in Wales by volume proposed here and was not supported at the time, an article again that did not have clear consensus, this feels disruptive, and is getting annoying. While such an article could gain consensus, the lack of or ignoring discussion is becoming tedious. DankJae 02:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have made the article and mentioned so on Talk:Reservoirs of Wales, but it it not a split, so this discussion is not relevant in the same way. I'm just being quick. Happy to have a discussion if this is wanted. Titus Gold (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Titus Gold, the discussion above is related however, therefore indicates such a move is controversial at the slightest, therefore best discussed, if you want to establish a longer consensus. Why are you rushing? WP:NODEADLINE, forcing your way is not exactly helpful, and against finding consensus. Consensus takes time, and your actions are not really helping. I would revert you, but I know you'd edit war with me. Discussions usually lead to varying outcomes, with many things considered, although how it is set up usually contributes to what action should be taken, so even if it was not logistically a split, the article created is the same as if it were. DankJae 02:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable comment, I would not want to engage in an edit war. As far as I could see, there is no rule against me making a page. It is not a split, nor a move, nor a point of view fork. It includes 20 reservoirs for Wales and uses a Wales specific and verifiable data source and also a differently phrased heading on raised capacity volume. As a result, I didn't think it was controversial at all. If you want to suggest a change you could bring a specific discussion for something on List of reservoirs in Wales by raised capacity if you like. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is a a WP:POVFORK, and it meets criterion G4 for speedy deletion. Tagged. DankJae, I agree completely that this continual lack of consensus building is tedious. I also agree with Titus Gold, that he does not want to edit war. In the past I have asked him to self revert re-asserted material that was reverted and he did, so he is careful to avoid classic edit warring. What we have here is a clear case of WP:CPUSH, civil POV pushing. Unfortunately the only remedy I foresee is a referral to ANI to ask uninvolved administrators to intervene, or else to test the possibility of community sanction, because despite his civility, the POV pushing is egregious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, DankJae -I absolutely agree. This is using semantics to try and create articles that consensus does not support and is tendentious editing. I am considering the merits of taking this to WP:ANI. The changes made, yet again to Reservoirs of Wales, strongly suggests agenda driven editing. We have had no formal resolution of the RMS and I would strongly support a closure of all pending RMs and reversion of Reservoirs of Wales to its December 2022 state. We could then start a measured process of merging existing content in the list reservoir articles to include UK wide topics and with an agreed set of parameters in the new merged article(s). This has been a shambles so far using enormous amounts of energy for several editors all driven by a single voice. This is not how Wikipedia works.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the actual article for discussion. This is for the historical proposal for a split. Titus Gold (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

Titus Gold, I object to this draftification. You have not notified the page author, and you have already had an objection to draftification of this page [1], so it is clearly not uncontroversial. You have added a tag but have not given editors adequate time to address it, and the list is not obviously in error. There is an ongoing discussion about an article split that your ar pre-empting. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, please restore the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have reverted the move myself. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, this page may not be unilaterally moved to draft space again. It will need editor consensus for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More citations template

The More citations template was added to this page yesterday. I think it is unnecessary, and just want to establish editor consensus before removing it. This is a list article, and the inclusions from the list are all cited to a source that appears to be authoritative. Moreover every entry is linked to a wikipedia page. This is sufficient referencing for a list. Inclusion criteria are not stated for this list, which could be rectified. Is this a list of all reservoirs in England and Wales, or is it a list of all that have a linked page? What happens at the micro level, where a small pond or lake is used by an estate as a reservoir, so is it just reservoirs managed by utilities companies? But those are not sourcing questions. On sourcing, there is sufficient and I think the maintenance tag can be removed. Any objections? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is a need for clarification on scope but the sourcing is from the Government's own agency using data collated from the water industry and water regulators. Each table entry is linked to a sourced article. This is better sourced than many articles.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the list in two?

I have reverted the split of the list into two. If nothing else, it renders the title of the article inaccurate (it would need to be 'Lists of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume'), but surely the list is intended to allow easy comparison by volume, which splitting the list doesn't easily allow. I note that the basis of the split was claimed as different responsibility for England and Wales... with detail for Wales but not for England. Surely the different administration/responsibility could be highlighted within a single list if deemed needed. I also note that this split within the article has taken place after a failed split of this article into separate articles for England and Wales. Llwyld (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happy for discussion. I think a split of the list is sensible for the page since England and Wales are different countries and Wales has devolved powers over water, it seems strange to group them into one list. This seems like an outdated grouping. Titus Gold (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't access the citation data so added a banner. Titus Gold (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation data updated. Template removed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Sirfurboy, much appreciated.
This data seems to be for all of the UK and so there does not seem to be any indication for an England and Wales grouping here. This calls into the question the justification of both the table grouping and the article title.
The article should either be renamed "List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom by volume" or specific to England only, since there is already a longer list of reservoirs for Wales at Reservoirs of Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if this is expanded UK-wide. Other editors? Thoughts? DankJae 00:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My first preference would be nation specific since water responsibility is devolved and which is why I previously suggested a page split for this page. My second preferred option would be a UK wide list since this is how the data is listed from this particular source. Other sources however group reservoir information specifically by nation e.g for Wales by Natural resources Wales because they are managed by nation specific bodies.[1] Titus Gold (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I know there would be overlap, I am open to having both. How many reservoirs are in each list? Limiting them both to like 20, would lead to two slightly different lists. Although this would mean five list articles, which some may see as duplicating, and the Wales one was AfD' DankJae 02:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list article... so, meh! 😁 I think aggregated lists are better than lots of little lists, as a general principle. If you have an aggregated list, it is easy to sort it and prune out data you do not require. If you have multiple lists then you have to join them if you want the aggregated view. Thus, yes, I would support aggregation to UK wide data. I don't see the benefit of then having out 5 separate lists that must be kept in sync with the aggregated list. Or rather, I see some benefit, but a massive disbenefit of inconsistency, which would pretty much be designed in. I would prefer five redirects to the aggregated list and an easy way to access the limited view (at least with a sortable field but better still with some kind of view control).
If I were doing this professionally, I would definitely create the aggregated list, and then I would simply create table views on the other lists. This leads me to a part of Wikipedia I have not explored. Can we transclude articles in mainspace? I suspect not, because breaking changes to an article would break the transcluded article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a UK-wide table from the same source. Just needs the links added from the name of the reservoirs. Since all three editors agree that a UK wide list is acceptable I will go ahead and move the title of the article accordingly. Titus Gold (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the England and Wales table in the article table below the main UK table temporarily in case it can be used or moved to an appropriate page. Titus Gold (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I suggested this could go UK wide, and will support a move to that, I have reverted the page bold move straight to it for clear procedural reasons. This page has already been subject of a bold move (reverted by a different editor) and a recent AfD where the vote was a clear keep. This is not an uncontroversial move, and it needs a considered editor consensus. See WP:RM and especially WP:RMUM and WP:RM#CM. I also would object to "by volume" in the title as that is not concise, so whilst generally supportive, I would oppose that name.
I have also reverted the replacement of all the data on this page with a copy and paste of the source data (ref 1 below), because that throws away a load of information for no good reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had established consensus. Shall I move to List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom then? Titus Gold (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RM. There is a process for potentially controversial moves that draws in more editor input. That is what is required here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Less than two days since the split was reverted and the concern raised here does not, in my view, constitute enough time to establish that consensus exists. The proper proper polices need to be followed and time needs to be allowed. Please be patient with others. Just wait before making major changes - there is no particular urgency. (To be clear I do support a UK wide article). Llwyld (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we do seem to have unanimous support for a UK wide article. I will wait 7 days from the initial suggestion by @DankJae on the 25th before considering a move if others agree with that. Titus Gold (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um? How does this sit with the existing List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom. I would suggest improvements to the already existing article is the way to go. If there is a need for a "Top 50" then that could surely be integrated into the existing article. I would much prefer a table with sorting on the key columns as per the existing England and Wales article so that readers could sort by Volume, or by Area or by Name. That provides much more flexibility and avoids the need to pre-judge what exactly is "the largest reservoir" (or Loch). The NERC Inventory, used as a source, lists only the top 90% of storage. Wikipedia readers have wider interests and there are many local reservoirs that are significant and need to be included. In Wales, for example, many relic industrial reservoirs have historical and cultural significance but may have a relatively small size but still need to be included. Having red-links in a list article isn't a problem provided there is reliable evidence of their existence and name. Red-links are an encouragement to editors to write the articles as per WP:REDLINK. In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current format of this article is not indicated at all and should be changed as soon as possible.
  1. Split to England and Wales separate pages (my personal preference)
  2. Move to UK wide article with sortable table
  3. Merge with List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom
At the moment, a move to a UK wide article with a sortable table is the most supported option. Titus Gold (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom since 7 days have elapsed since initial proposal by @DankJae on 25th.
(I will then propose merger for discussion with List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom) Titus Gold (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Titus Gold, you're the one that first mentioned it? DankJae 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I mentioned it on the 24th. Titus Gold (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This needs an RM. I said this, 09:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC), reiterated it 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC), and Llwyld also pointed it out to you 01:39, 27 March 2023. It is a controversial move and per WP:RM#CM, an RM is required. I have reverted the move. Again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And , for the record, the edit by Titus Gold created an abomination of an article with with most names unlinked , and with coordinates not in any useful format. I proposed improvements to existing articles and the removal of the recently added list to Reservoirs of Wales. So clearly there was neither unanimous support for the move nor even a consensus.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the inclusion of that second table (again). If and when this article extends to a list that includes Scottish reservoirs, the Scottish reservoirs should be added here. Simply replacing the table with another (inferior) table is not doing the job. The data on this page came originally from an FOI release of data for England and Wales. It can be verified to another source, but that does not mean it should be replaced by the data en bloc from that source. There also appears to be an agenda here. Why take an article with English and Welsh data, and rename to to UK wide, only to remove all of its data, replace it with different data and then instantly suggest merging with another article? Why not just start with that other article? Unless there is something about THIS article, that the editor has sent to AfD already, and recently (resulting in a consensus to keep). This is looking like back door deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current data used is not verifiable and neither did it seem accessible. The data I added was from a verifiable source that @Sirfurboy added.
I don't think this is controversial since there seemed to be clear majority in favour of the move. Nevertheless I have added a RM as per your requests. Titus Gold (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Large Raised Reservoir (Registered information) | DataMapWales". datamap.gov.wales. Retrieved 2023-02-09.

Merge proposal

I propose merging List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom into List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom (or vice versa). I think the content of both can easily be explained together and a merger would not cause any article-size or undue weighing issues. Titus Gold (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One article is simply a top 50 (48?) list of the biggest, mostly potable water supply, reservoirs. The other is a comprehensive (although incomplete) list of dams and reservoirs across the United Kingdom including very many disused reservoirs and dams, many of which served now redundant purposes and would be very hard, if not impossible to fit in to a tabular format. For many, the only information about tem is their existence on an Ordnance Survey map or a passing mention in a reliable book source. These two lists seem very ill suited to a merge. Today's example of how merging might happen does, I think, give me very good cause to be very concerned about what sort of article might emerge from such a merge. I am therefore Opposed to the proposal.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
going back to RM as above Titus Gold (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear what has happened to this proposal. The article is still tagged as a merge proposal but no evidence of discussion since it was tagged is missing. I propose that the merge of List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom is aborted until the merge proposal below is determined and actioned. At present we have three articles being merged simultaneously without proper consideration of each pair or merges.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume → List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom – As previously stated, there is no indication for an England and Wales grouping in this context. I prefer a split to seperate England and Wales pages but majority of editors seem to prefer a a UK wide page. Titus Gold (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am minded to support this move, but I have some concerns. Firstly, the original source of information for this list was data published by the Environment Agency, which catalogued reservoirs for both England and Wales and published data in a format that allowed us to see the owner and the location county. Twice the nom. has bold moved this article and immediately replaced that data table with data copied directly, without collation, into a new table that deletes this information. See: [2] and [3]. What I can agree with is an attempt to improve this article by adding in Scottish reservoirs, based on additional data we can now obtain from the Environemntal Information Data Centre - but there are no short cuts here. The existing data and table are good, and must remain. Adding in Scottish data is a matter of collating information from the additional sources, along with other public data that allows us to add location and ownership of the Scottish reservoirs. SecondlyI am concerned that after the latest move of the page, the nom. immediately proposed a merger with the new article and another. Although the merge was not clear about direction of the move, if the proposal is just a step in an attempt to merge the article there is no point moving it first. That leads me to my thrird concern: The nom. has recently taken this article to AfD and the article was kept. An attempt to rename it, replace the data on the page, and then merge that new data into a different article is very clear backdoor deletion. So, to be clear, I would support this move if, and only if, I were assured that the intention is to improve this existing list with Scottish data, appropriately and carefully curated and collated. I do not support any action that is intended to result in the article's deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I previously moved the page because I was under the impression that there was majority agreement for it. The UK wide data used the source that @Sirfurboy cited and I formed a new table, verifiably sourced. I proposed a merge following a pont that was raised about how this page would sit alongside List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom, and so a merge seemed like a sensible proposal. I'm happy to forget about a merger, as I think a good UK-wide table may justify a separate page, particularly if sortable for volume etc. The problem with the current data on this page for England and Wales only (which I still left in as a second table previously) is that it is unverifiable and inaccessible as far as I can see; that's a discussion for the new page and we should focus on the move for now I think. Thanks for the comments @Sirfurboy :) Titus Gold (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In what sense is the data you jettisoned unverifiable and inaccessible? I wonder how we could verify that Llyn Brianne (for example), a very large body of water, lies in Powys? Something will surely come to me. In the meantime, I notice that it is not hard to locate the owner:[4]. But this is why I said no short cuts. I filled one reference for the collection, I did not intend that we only provide information in that list, nor that should be our only reference. After all, what is the point of Wikipedia if we don't curate information? Good pages take a bit of time, and merging that Scottish data is not a trivial task. Yet I will support the move, if the intent is to extend this article rather than enact its backdoor deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current data for the England and Wales table does not seem to be the same data which is in the citation. (As I've said, the UK-wide table I added was based on the source cited on this page which you provided.) Would you be happy to expand the table yourself to include Scotland and NI? I am personally content with both pages on UK-wide reservoirs remaining. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis that the move goes ahead, yes, I would expect that we merge in the Scottish reservoirs, in the first instance using the data from that source, and leaving data on location and ownership blank. Per WP:THEREISNORUSH, those can be filled in as editors are able to locate the sources. Not sure we really need sources for most locations though, per WP:BLUESKY, as the location of a reservoir is rarely controversial and simply verified by recourse to a map. Having said that, verifying ownership usually turns up a source that verifies location. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this move goes ahead, I am assuming that the new list will be comprehensive. I.e. it will include ALL reservoirs in the UK and that it will include a definition of what constitutes a reservoir. Any consideration of any possible merge with List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom should await the completion and acceptance of that first merge. It may be worth noting that there are many 'List of dams and reservoirs.... articles for many countries and this may be the most acceptable title for a final merged article.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it seems as though we have a consensus in support of the move. Titus Gold (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titus Gold, WP:RM/Ci do not close this RM and move this article as you are taking part in this discussion as the nominator. DankJae 02:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am already aware of the rules, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in assessing consensus, it is useful if at least one person has !voted! The above is all discussion. On the basis that your "OK" is acceptance of what Velella and I have said about the basis on which a move is made (i.e. no backdoor deletion of the content), I do now agree with the move, and to help the closer, I will put that on a new line below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I agree with you. Titus Gold (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although work must be done to integrate the data more suitably. The existing list is technically incorrect per the new source cited, so would likely require work regardless (figures in list and source aren't all the same). Oppose, if this RM succeeds, of a merge with List of dams and reservoirs in the United Kingdom, this is for volume specifically, lists of dams and reservoirs is usually a general list of all of them? DankJae 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I have a UK data draft table in my sandbox to assist with this proposal using the source and the previous attempt, help there would be appreciated. @Sirfurboy @Titus Gold @Velella. Note, that table only uses what is present in the source cited here. Sources for surface area etc. would need to be found or deleted. DankJae 13:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Titus Gold (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on the basis of the discussion above, that this is a move that preserves the existing data and allows it to be extended. Also per DankJae. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK data

As mentioned above I have a table of the UK Data from the source cited here in my sandbox, but it is not 100% finished in terms of locations and wikilinks. Just adding it here to save time for any new attempts to add the UK data. I could move it somewhere else (not sure where), if you want to edit it. While there are no WP:DEADLINES, I won't be able to finish it for weeks (other priorities), and would appreciate assistance, to get it out the way, as the RM was supported, but the data remains England and Wales. DankJae 19:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I also have an upcoming deadline. We can edit in your sandbox if you don't mind. But I won't be doing any major writing for a couple of weeks. (Even this reply counts as displacement activity!) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Count this reply as one too! Welcome any of you to my sandbox, but yeah not able to continue it for a while. DankJae 20:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, @Velella, @Titus Gold, considering this article only uses the "Environmental Information Data Centre" source (aside one figure), and I had largely completed the minor tasks of my sandbox table solely using that same source, which the table here can not be verified with. Should I replace the table here with that one? and should the existing table remain some how or be removed? Surface area is not stated in the source, so has to be removed with a lack of citation for now, although hopefully could be added back in the future. While there are some gaps, they're not stated in the source used in this article. DankJae 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we need to remove surface area. It was created with a reliable source, and the fact that the reliable source is not currently online does not mean it is no longer true. I would rather have it there with a better source needed template than just delete information simply because the information was taken down. The verifiability policy does not require that sources are available online - just taht information is verified to a reliable source, and that data is. Furthermore, surface area could, in theory, be calculated by anyone with a map. We don't have to fill it where we don't currently know the data, but I see no reason to delete it. Otherwise, though, this looks very good. When the data is merged, your table can replace the old table (because it constitutes a merge). Thanks for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I've now kinda merged the two tables if the old (but unfortunately not as easily verifiable) content should be retained. While there is no requirement for it to be online, it is much harder for readers to verify it, and the data is at least 11 years old, so did doubt its accuracy due to time, so hope it can be verified eventually. Although happy to cut or rework some of the table still, but it makes more sense to include all the values initially used from the Public Register source if we are to retain it (there is large differences between nominal and maximum to be of some importance), but it makes the table a bit large (at least on my pc). DankJae 19:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, is the old information desperately needed, cannot exactly find those values for all 225 other reservoirs, nor do I have the will to do such, and it greatly makes the table too large. Is their any other way? May be two tables in this list? Plus there was a past discussion on using maps as sources, but not sure where that went.
Surely moving the content here, could allow others who may have access to or are able to find such data to add to it? DankJae 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly added UK data per no response here, maintained the previous table for those details, but I do not have the will to find all those other details alone. DankJae 21:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_reservoirs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1206538802"