Talk:Lake retention time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lakes
 Lake retention time is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Juggling numbers

  • Clinton Lake 6 months
  • Faaker See 7.8 months
  • Lake Silvaplana c. 250 days
  • Lake Sarnen 0.8 years
  • Greifensee 420 days
  • Lake Zurich 440 days
  • Tegernsee 1.28 years
  • Lake Walen 1.4258 years
  • Lake Murten 1.6 years
  • Lake Thun 684 days

That's what is says...OK?

Now, someone who put this together must have worked out that 250 days is more than 7.8 months but less than 0.8 years.

So why didn't the mathematical person who worked out that 250 days was less than this and more than that, actually make the stuff match? This list reads like the stuff of idiots who write for newspapers and say that while 43% do, less than half don't and maybe 2 in a hundred might while 0.05 have really no idea at all.

Fix it, someone! It's a violation of common sense! 1.4258 years! 648 blinking days!

Can I suggest that someone makes the dayish ones into days, up to 365, then you go yearsish. What Grandma reeeally wants to know is, if calculations are made to the 4th decimal point, what happens in Leap Years? --Amandajm 10:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee .. take it easy. The numbers reproduced are those given in the different articles. An easy way to fix it, would be to find references for specific lakes you like, include the reference and update the infoboxes accordingly.
Next time this list is regenerated, it would look the way you like. -- User:Docu
You may like the new version .. it sorts even better. -- User:Docu

[edit] Source

Somebody should cite these numbers properly in accordance with WP:CITE. I would, but looking over the external links it wasn't clear to me which "article about the lake" the original poster was referring to. --Jhamon 10:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For "Lake Baikal", it's Lake Baikal, "Crater Lake" it's Crater Lake etc. Hope it's clear now. -- User:Docu

I believe the values for Lake Tahoe and Lake Baikal are in error, there is no way that the retention time for Lake Tahoe can be more than that for Lake Baikal. I would hope that someone familiar with the data for both lakes would make the corrections--Pkrnger 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are from the corresponding articles. Try these or the following sources: (Lake Tahoe) p.2, (Lake Baikal). -- User:Docu

[edit] How we can improve this list

From the discussion here, it seems that User:Docu] is automatically generating the list of lake retention times, presumably by using a bot. First question: am I understanding that right?

If so, then there's not much point in my editing the list directly, but perhaps I could make a suggestion. This long list of retention times doesn't really suit what should be an encyclopedic article on the concept of lake retention time. Could it perhaps be moved to a new page called (for example) List of lake retention times and hopefully formatted similarly to List of lakes by volume and List of lakes by depth. There remain issues about providing some geographical context (continent, country or countries), and finding a good way to sort values ranging from <1day to >1,000 years.

Then, in this main article, the very long table could be replaced by a much shorter one of particularly notable lakes. I'm thinking that it would include some with very short or very long documented retention times, plus retention times for some of the world's best known lakes. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good work in correcting and expanding the article.
In response to your first question, the list was generated from infoboxes. All other {{infobox lake}} didn't provide residence times. The list is already sortable on both columns. Next time, I could include basin country or location field similar to WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries/Image_missing.
As the list gets longer and the article more detailed, it could easily go on another page. Personally I don't think it's a priority though. Lists often provide lengthy introductions. Already now, it's worth providing sample residence times in addition to the main list. -- User:Docu