Talk:Crotty Dam

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Tasmania Low‑importance

	Australia portal Crotty Dam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Merge with John Butters Dam

Object - the landscape of western tasmania is such, that the dam and its water catchment deserve an article to itself - the power station articles in the tasmanian project are not necessarily connected with the impoundments behind them. Damming rivers has been a controversial issue in Tasmanian history - and the separation is useful so as to not conflate a range of issues. User:JarrahTree 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both articles are small, particularly the article about the power station which is a stub. At the same time, the dam article already has a section about the power station. Merging these articles will create more comprehensive topic about the topic. It is tthe usual practise to have a single article for the hydroelectric dams and their power stations. As for the controversy, these articles do not mention any, so how it could avoid the merger? Beagel (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reply - replied at your talk User:JarrahTree 07:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There is no pretense for merging both a dam and its power station. Unfortunately, an earlier editor used {{infobox dam}} instead of {{infobox power station}} which created similar feel to each of the articles. I have today corrected and replaced the dam infobox with the power station infobox. I suggest the editors look at Guthega or Murray or any others in the Snowies Scheme where, in the main, separate articles were created for each of the water storage facilities and the power stations that generate energy. Rangasyd (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]