Template talk:Colorado River system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey - I LOVE this! Great work! Mark Richards 18:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. B
Contents |
[edit] Adding lakes to the natural features section
Your addition of the list of Colorado River features to the article on Glen Canyon Dam is valuable. I notice, though, that there's no category in the list for the large and important reservoirs created by the dams -- Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Shouldn't they be included in a comprehensive listing of important features of this river system? There are entries for their associated National Recreation Areas, but in each case the reservoir itself is an entity different from the NRA. (Lake Powell already has a separate article. I think Lake Mead should have one, instead of just redirecting to the Hoover Dam.) JamesMLane talk 10:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to adding the lakes/reservoirs. I considered it and they probably should be added, but I was satisfied with what I had for the first draft. I mostly just wanted to get this mediawiki up and running so that other editors could start improving upon it. I would suggest to this forum that it might be useful to edit the table to show which NRAs and lakes correspond to which dams and so forth. Lake Mohave and Lake Mead are both part of the Lake Mead NRA. B 13:46, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
My only concern is that trying to pack too much into tbe table might make it more confusing. If the article on Lake Mohave says it's part of the Lake Mead NRA, and the article on the Lake Mead NRA says it includes Lake Mohave, I don't think that information needs to be included in the table as well. Of course, this is a minor point; I agree with Mark Richards that what you've done is great work. Below I address a separate issue, not specifically about your table, but about organizing the treatment of the Colorado River system. JamesMLane 19:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Glen Canyon Dam controversy
This question isn't directly related to the mediawiki, but it does concern organization of these articles, so perhaps this page is a reasonable place to raise it. I wrote the initial text for the Glen Canyon Dam. There's a great deal more that should be added to present both sides of the initial and ongoing controversy. Should that material be included in: (i) Glen Canyon Dam, because it's about whether to decommission the dam; (ii) Lake Powell, because it's about whether to drain the lake; or (iii) in a new article, something like Glen Canyon Dam controversy or Glen Canyon restoration, with appropriate links? JamesMLane 19:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't know, but as long as each article mentions the discussion and points to it clearly, I don't really care. How about starting it off on Glen Canyon, since that is the immediate focus of the controversy, and splitting it out if it gets too big? Mark Richards 20:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tributaries of tributaries
The Salt River flows into the Gila River, which flows into the Colorado. Should the Salt River be included in the list of tributaries? or would the inclusion of tributaries of tributaries balloon the list unnecessarily? JamesMLane 14:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- The Salt River is such a signficant tributary. The Gila River wouldn't be half of what it is without the Salt River flowing into it. Include it. —B|Talk 14:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rename the template
I suggest renaming the template to "Colorado River watershed". That usage is more common and precise for what this template is intended to present. —B|Talk 14:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Fixbeforeigo 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Shrink template?
This thing is huge--takes up more than the entire screen at 800x600. How about reducing the vertical size by putting the section headings on the left, something like:
Fixbeforeigo 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
