Talk:Oroville Dam crisis

Suggested References

Anyone want another reference The Guardian UK --ClemRutter (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

River bypass

There was also a river bypass that the dam was built with. It was damaged extensively in 2009 and has never been used since.

Not sure if this should be added, but in researching any catastrophe, all significant factors should be disclosed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:509F:DC00:D841:AC05:716C:4D4C (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are links: DWR planning study on worrisome river valves blamed in 2009 Oroville Dam accident http://www.orovillemr.com/general-news/20120912/dwr-planning-study-on-worrisome-river-valves-blamed-in-2009-oroville-dam-accident Oroville Dam River Outlet Diversion Tunnel No. 2 http://www.srco.com/index.php?id=85 Foolssanma (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.archive.org/stream/zh9californiastatew2003calirich/zh9californiastatew2003calirich_djvu.txt There has been works on the river outlet in 2014/15 resulting in "half-capacity was enough to meet cold water requirements" https://mavensnotebook.com/2016/06/07/california-water-commission-update-on-state-water-project-operations-and-issues/Foolssanma (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional photo and grid coordinates

There is an additional photo of the damaged spillway on Wikimapia available here. It's probably CC-BY-SA. The Wikimapia view of the location for the 2017 Spillway Failure is here, including grid coordinates. - tucoxn\^talk 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

California National Guard

Edit request: The significance of the *entire* California National Guard being placed on alert status bears mentioning somewhere in this article. Per a statement from Adjutant General David S. Baldwin quoted by the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-live-updates-oroville-dam-all-23-000-california-national-guard-1486988371-htmlstory.html), the total forces of the California National Guard have not been on alert status since the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. MilesFrmOrdnary (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Rework of summary

@Magnolia677: Re: my edit and your revert. Yes, I know it's already there, but more scattered and hard to follow. In particular, the interactions between the various events are hard to divine from the current text. I thought a more straightforward summary was needed, and this seemed the best place to insert it. (I'm also limited by the fact that, as a frequently updated current event, I can't take too long editing or I get conflicts. That rush is why I didn't insert all the citations yet; they're elsewhere in the article and can be added piecemeal.) Could you suggest a better place (or reconsider?) Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I know it's scattered. That's why I added the summary. If you add more detail to the summary, then it's not a summary. And if you add detail that is mentioned later in the article, then it's redundant. Could I could suggest you give the article a good read and if something is absolutely missing from the summary then add it. This article seems to have a lot of watchers so others may wish to comment. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed water down "earthen hillside" to same "undeveloped canyon slope" term used in citation. That is not a hill of dirt, it's a rock hill with some dirt on it. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@SEWilco: Thanks, that is more appropriate. There was a surface layer of dirt, but that was never expected to last. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Useful sources.

As others have noted, this discussion thread at metabunk.org is quite useful.

One good source I found there is Bulletin No. 200: California State Water Project Volume III: Storage Facilities (PDF) (Report). State of California Department of Water Resources. November 1974. Pages 63–140 have a lot of original design information on the Oroville dam. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Technical descriptions of aux spillway

@Magnolia677: has reverted many of my additions to this article. I would like other editors to look at this diff and restore it. Magnolia has cn tagged the 55000 cubic foot number even though it is in the Kasler source just cited. The diff also identifies the "wall" as a "weir". It more strongly ties the fear is the collapse of the weir rather than the entire auxiliary spillway. See use of "weir" at at thumb|center|Chute Spillway. A "30-ft wall of water" is not good terminology. "Wall"s are high but they are not usually thick. The wall will not be 30-ft high as it flows down the Feather River. Thee acre-feet number is WP:CALC. Glrx (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Glrx: If you know the source, then add it to the article and remove the "citation needed" tag. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Article name

Per WP:DISASTER, the word "crisis" shouldnever be used in a case like this article:

Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like. ... Only use the word crisis when it meets the definition, such as a constitutional crisis.

I suggest the title 2017 Oroville Dam overflow. AHeneen (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The term "crisis" has been used by most of the major national, state and local newspapers, along with radio and television networks. National magazines are using it. FEMA and DHS are now involved, so it's more than subjective.--Light show (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Really informative article but there are a few issues with grammar. The lead sentence for example:

The 2017 Oroville Dam crisis is a major and ongoing threat to lives and property in Northern California. At 770 feet (235 m), Oroville Dam is the tallest dam in the United States.

The 2017 Oroville Dam crisis occurred in February 2017 when the spillway at the 770 feet (235 m), Oroville Dam, on the Feather River in Northern California was damaged. This threatened lives and property downstream, causing 180,000 people to be evacuated" may be a better way.

ClemRutter (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We should use present tense since the situation is ongoing and will continue through the end of runoff season ~late May/early June. Shannon 20:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I'm quite open to another term, and indeed "crisis" isn't quite perfect, but it's generic enough that at least it's not misleading. I think the term accurately describes an ongoing problem of a potential disaster that nobody's quite sure how to solve. A close equivalent would be the Citigroup Center#Engineering crisis of 1978. Per Light show, I'd like to stick with it until something clearly better is proposed.

I'd like to disagree with "overflow", however. It's an ambiguous term, and either possibility is misleading. In the context of dams, "overflow" might be considered overtopping which hasn't happened, and can't happen due to the emergency spillway. The only "overflow" that has happened is the emergency spillway use, which was midway through the crisis, and a planned response, not the cause.

The problem is the spillway damage, and consequent risk of "loss of crest control", erosion of one of the spillway lips that would amount to a partial dam failure, dumping a few tens of feet of the 770-foot reservoir down the Feather river. The main spillway got damaged. "Okay, this is an emergency, we'll use the emergency spillway." The emergency spillway was expected to suffer damage, but eroded far faster than expected, and threatened to undermine the weir. Massive sudden evacuations. Now both spillways have the same problem. So they're frantically trying to patch up the emergency spillway before the main spillway damage progresses to the point that it's needed again. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How about 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failure? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs)

@Antony-22: That's fine with me, and seems to fit the neutrality guidelines at WP:DISASTER#Descriptor very well. We should be clear that the really nasty part is the double spillway failure. Any other opinions? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could make it plural: 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failures. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failures is the most appropriate title for this article. AHeneen (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, with all due respect, please don't use that title. That would imply the spillway has already failed and suggest a higher level of panic than actually exists. The spillways are heavily damaged, but so far, the structures holding water in the lake are still intact. The dictionary definition of crisis is 1) "a time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger" or 2) "a time when difficult or important decision must be made" which sufficiently illustrates the situation at Oroville at present. The forecasted storms and the very high snowpack will pose considerable danger over the next few months, making the situation very difficult to manage, and most importantly the dam or spillways have not (yet) failed. Shannon 18:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the spillways did fail; their purpose is to convey water in a controllable manner without eroding, which they failed to do. I'm pretty sure reliable sources have used the word "fail". The gates and dam did not fail, but the title "spillway failures" does not imply that they did. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I might not have been clear. It's just that the word "failure" sounds too dramatic for the current situation (bordering on sensationalism), and in the context of dams and reservoirs, generally means an uncontrolled, catastrophic release of water. The emergency spillway came very close to failing but the flow of water over it (thankfully) stopped before it did. If at some point in the near future it does actually fail, that would be another story. Shannon 02:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The word "crisis" is also very, if not more, dramatic. Words like "disaster" and "crisis" are vague and subjective and should be avoided when possible. While the spillway failures will result in a lot of danger over the next few months, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article can be renamed if necessary. However, the fact that there are effects after or other than the event mentioned in the title does not make it a bad title. If it did then there would be articles for "1906 San Francisco disaster" for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which caused a fire that destroyed the city, or "2011 Japan crisis" for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, when the resulting nuclear meltdown was also a major resulting event and there was a significant effect on Japan's economy afterwards.

I couldn't find any discussion about the policy above regarding the word "crisis". The given definition of "crisis" renders other parts of the WP:DISASTER policy irrelevant. I think that the intention was that "crisis" should only be used when it is part of a generally-used phrase, such as "constitutional crisis". More weight should be given to the intention of the WP:DISASTER policy, which is to use a more descriptive title when possible. Another policy to consider is WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. AHeneen (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion about use of crisis based on its definition, citing this discussion. See: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)#Policy adjustment regarding "crisis". AHeneen (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that the current article title "crisis" is not the best choice of words, but as you mentioned, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we just don't know how this situation will play out over the next few months. The spillway may fail eventually, but that's not in any way inevitable. We don't want to imply that to any readers who aren't very well versed with dam or engineering related terminology. Any other editors have suggestions? Shannon 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

We should defer to the MSM's description of it as a crisis. Then hope we don't have more Orovilles. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The spillways did fail, which caused the crisis. They did not perform as they should have. The remark about crystal ball was to concern that the dam will continue to be in danger for the remainder of the wet season. While some media may use the term "crisis", that's not really the common name for this situation. Many media use the word "disaster" after events too, but that doesn't mean that we should liberally use "disaster" in article titles. AHeneen (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm most concerned w/noting that it was the spillways that failed, not the dam. I'd prefer 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failures or 2017 Oroville Dam spillway crisis. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen edits this morning about two reports being commissioned- suggests that this chain of events is not yet over, and changing the title changes the focus and scope of text we enter. The failure of the spillways is more a paragraph heading than a title. I hope we stick with the status quo until this is resolved ( probably in about 2 decades time ). I am really interested to read the reports and how blame is established. ClemRutter (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplication

I have changed the section boundaries in an attempt to make this clearer. What I would like to do now is to remove the duplication from:

• section 2 Crater and section 3 Background, and then
• section 3 Background and 4 Auxiliary spillway use

But that will involve the deletion of some text! So I am coming here first.

• The section Background can then disappear.

If anyone wants to perform the edit- please do. Otherwise I will just comment out some of the duplicates so they can be reintroduced if I have got it wrong. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I am leaving the removed text here, wrapped in comment brackets, so anyone can restore bits and check whether we now have the best references etc

--ClemRutter (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

Please undo Special:Diff/765869112 which introduced the section heading "Risk of Dam Collapse". A significant ongoing problem has been the confusion between a spillway collapse and a dam collapse. The former is a possibility, would devastate Oroville and cause a major flood downstream. The latter would be cataclysmic, but is pretty much impossible, because of the large knob of bedrock between the spillways and the dam. The difference is between 30 ft of the reservoir lost and ≈770 ft. Both bad, but a very big difference. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (Ping @Magnolia677:, whose edit this is.)

(You're welcome to choose an alternative title, of course, like "Risk of spillway collapse". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Done Seems to have been done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about references and DYK

I see this article references http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oroville-Dam-spillway-hole-erosion-water-reservoir-10920358.php a few times but actually links to http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article131579999.html which seems to be a different issue. I also plan to kick this article over to Wikipedia:Did you know, so all the "citation needed"s will need to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Infographic

Infographic of events leading up to and during the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis, based on information available as of February 14, 2pm PST

First of all, this is a very nice graphic detailing the situation. However, images should not be used to convey text per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The main reasons are that text in images can't be searched and—more importantly—can't be read by software for the visually impaired, plus the large image is awkward on mobile displays. The individual images can be used to illustrate some of the events (labels are ok in the image, but descriptions should be a caption and not part of the image), but the entire chart is overkill. I would have placed a cleanup tag in the section, but since the DYK nomination has passed, I decided to just remove the image to here so that is doesn't affect the posting of the DYK.

Also, the description of the 2005 proposal is misleading/inaccurate. The federal government didn't deny the request per se. During a re-licensing procedure, some environmental groups proposed that the federal government require the state to line the emergency spillway with concrete as a condition of renewing the license. The federal government noted that the existing spillway met existing guidelines and therefore approved the license. See this article. So it's not that the proposal was rejected by federal regulators, but that their guidelines were satisfied by the existing structure and they had no valid reason to deny a renewal. For fairness and to satisfy due process of law, practically all licensing/permitting and contracting by government agencies is based on predetermined criteria. Even if "rejected" is technically correct, it is a misleading term in this situation. AHeneen (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Under "2005: Upgrade proposal rejected": there was no credible costs estimate for armoring the spillway. Under "Repairs made": Rocks were not placed "under" the emergency spillway; they were placed downstream of the emergency spillway weir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.89.109 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 === Avoid entering textual information as images ===
{{shortcut|MOS:TEXTASIMAGES}}

Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]] tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.

Is that the that the text you are quoting as an authority?

The text says almost always.

I appreciate the concern, but in an on-going current situation I think it is a reasonable compromise to include the informative images until we have something better. I won't be difficult to knock up an equivalent svg but will take some time. You admit the text is technically correct, and our format allows the use of alt text to help screen readers WP:ALTIMG, can I suggest that is the interim solution. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this image is super helpful and should definitely be added back to the article. The Manual of Style just wants to make sure we don't say anything in the picture that isn't explained by text. But this is definitely a case of "a picture says more than 1000 words". Visualising exactly what a spillway is, and where the different components of the dam are located (relative to each other) is hard - this infographic makes the process of understanding much faster and much easier. It should definitely be viewed as a great complement to the article text. Snowball adding it back - let's continue the discussion, but with the infographic in place while we do so. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added a MOS template to tag the infographic as something that potentially needs improvement, just as this discussion discusses. I feel this way the concerns of the OP is met while still allowing readers to enjoy the great usefulness that is the infographic. (Feel free to improve the actual template I used - MOS was just the most appropriate of the Cleanup templates I could find) CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire image may be helpful, but separate images with captions would be equally helpful and would be both accessible (both for visually impaired and for those using smartphones) and within policy. Since the image wasn't uploaded as an SVG file, it is hard to change the text in the infographic and to adjust it for new developments, which also prevents some editors from correcting the information (which is even more important in an ongoing situation). The 2005 proposal is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, nor does the article mention the continuing risks. Another issue, not mentioned in the OP, is the size of the infographic. It should be expressed as |upright= not |px= (see MOS:IMGSIZE and WP:IMGSIZE) and even in the exceptional case where px is used, the image shouldn't be larger than 500x400. AHeneen (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Second this, it should be split into separate images (in svg format of course). As the situation progresses it would be easier to edit the individual frames and/or add and drop from the article as needed. Shannon 04:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Action

Infographic of events leading up to and during the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis, based on information available as of February 14, 2pm PST

OROVILLE DAM,FEBRUARY 2017

Oroville Dam normal operations	2005: Upgrade proposal rejected	7 Feb 2017: Main spillway fails
1. The lake level is controlled using the main spillway gate, which releases water down the concrete spillway to get to the river below. 2. The emergency spillway, which has a 30 ft (9 m) high concrete wall at the top of a hill, is unused.	Despite concerns that the emergency spillway is vulnerable to erosion, a $100 million request by community groups to upgrade it to a concrete-lined auxiliary spillway rejected by the federal regulators.	Craters appear in the main spillway. To avoid increasing the damage to the spillway, water releases are slowed allowing the lake to rise.
11 Feb 2017: Emergency spillway used	13 Feb 2017: Repairs made	Potential risks
Water flows over the emergency spillway causing erosion and damage. This by design and prevents water going over the top of the main dam. However the ground erodes faster than expected.	Rocks are placed under the emergency spillway's 30 ft (9 m) wall to repair the erosion damage. The rate of water released into the main spillway is increased, to lower the lake in preparation for more rain on February 15th.	While the main 770 ft (230 m) dam is not threatened, if the erosion on either spillway reaches the top, it would cause the weir or gate (respectively) to collapse, causing a large uncontrolled water release and life-threatening floods.
version 2a-February 2017		public domain OK to share and use

Above is a draft of a simple table to replace the text in the graphic. Real life prevents me from finishing the job (exhaustion-I am on GMT)- the formatting details are at Help:Table if anyone wants to continue.ClemRutter (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A few tweaks to new infographic table ClemRutter (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please proof read this table before you cut and paste into the article, and put in any necessary amendments, otherwise it is ready. enjoy. ClemRutter (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the table! Made some edits to the text. Hopefully improved. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've redistributed several images throughout the article and added a decent amount of context to the article. After all that, I suggest breaking up the images individually. Using this revision of the article, I suggest:

• Add a 3 on the emergency spillway on the first image and then add it to the "Background" section (aligned with "In 2005, the dam...") with the caption "The main spillway (1) is used to quickly release water from the reservoir. If water reaches 901 ft (275 m) above mean sea level, it overflows a concrete weir (2) and down an emergency spillway on the unprotected spillway (3). In 2005, environmental advocacy groups urged lining the emergency spillway with concrete." Doing that would make image 2 redundant
• I added two images of damage to the main spillway, which I think adequately replaces image 3.
• In my opinion, the image in the "Emergency spillway damage" section adequately replaces image 4.
• For image 5, the emergency repairs wasn't just dropping rocks, but also pouring concrete on the emergency spillway. 2-3 images using Template:Multiple images could be added to show the emergency repair effort. I've also uploaded some images on Commons from the DWR's Twitter account (California government works are in the public domain). 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. Tweets with interesting photos that could be uploaded to Commons: [1], [2]. I only made it back to February 13. There should be other good images earlier.
• Image 6 could be omitted or placed in the "Downstream effects" with a short caption.

In my opinion, it's better to use real images of the situation. I should mention that the creator of the infographic did a good job, I hope my comments aren't interpreted harshly. AHeneen (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, for the compliments- can I return them by saying your knowledge of the subject is awesome. The infographic table helps to demonstrate just how flexible our wikimedia markup can be. The infographic seems to be fitting nicely on the page at the moment but everything has a finite lifespan. I am taking a break before converting the png to svgs, it is a job to do when I am without a wifi connection. Keep the ideas flowing and explaining where the existing images are missing the point.ClemRutter (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I'm willing to do the SVGs if you don't have the time. In response to @AHeneen:'s comment ("it's better to use real images of the situation"): I did a little SVG test that is drawn to scale (see right). This corresponds to the 1st image in the existing infographic. Does this look like a better compromise between the simplified diagram and real photographs? Cheers, Shannon 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shannon1: Please- go ahead. You beat me on knowledge and quality! The task is almost trivial when you have produced the base image, as I see you have.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shannon1: If you post the individual images- I can put them in a the table. It is trivial- find the lines in the code:

|-
|colspan=3|<center>[[File:Oroville dam infographic feb 14.bottom.png|800px]]</center>

and replace it with

|-
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]
|[[File:OROVILLE Infographic Test.svg|250px]]


and you will see them like ducks in a row.

raw example of images below text

First	Second	Third

ClemRutter (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Thank you for the help! I always mess up wiki formatting for some reason. I'll probably have a draft version done soon... Shannon 19:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the earlier remark I made about creating an SVG image was intended to mean that the original infographic which contained explanations in the image should have been uploaded as an SVG file so that the text could be easily edited by others. That said, the most recent SVG images are quite good (!!!), so it has turned out to be a good thing I didn't clarify that comment earlier. I'll try to edit one of the images (and upload as a new file) with my suggestions, but it may be a couple of days so here they are: the road could be added that crossed the emergency spillway; the "emergency spillway" label should be on or point to the hillside not just the weir (which could be labeled separately); the weir could be displayed the text is hard to read at the size displayed above (250px, but see my comment above about the MOS for display size) and should be in a larger font (it looks like a bold font, try a standard font and regular case rather than all caps); the "Thermolito diversion pool" label may not be necessary; (a) separate version(s) of the image with the eroded channel off the main spillway and noting areas of erosion on the emergency spillway could be created. AHeneen (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I was thinking myself that the font sizes are too small. At any rate I've only done a few of the SVGs, so it won't be too much trouble to go back and fix them. (Also I'll add in the roads soon.) Since the older infographic was uploaded as a PNG file I wasn't aware of any easy way to convert it to SVG, so I just made a new one by tracing over a topo map of the area. Shannon 23:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

SVG

PNG

Shannon's earlier version

Here is a version with changes to the labels I suggested. I had a hard time trying to place the "emergency spillway" label in a way that doesn't create too much visual clutter, eventually settling on an offset, two line label. This doesn't easily allow the addition of the road, but I'm now thinking that may not be needed. The "Feather River" doesn't look quite as good as the original file. I am using Inkscape and don't know how to easily create text aligned on a curve as the version above. Also, after uploading the file to Commons, the font appeared different than it does in Inkscape, so I uploaded a PNG version which appears as the file does in Inkscape. However, on this page, the images appear identical. The font for the labels is DejaVu Sans, bold, 11pt, except "Feather River" and "Lake Oroville" which are DejaVu Sans, normal (not bold), 14pt. I increased the width of the stroke of the edges of the emergency spillway to 1.5 so it is more visible and added a slim black border on the image. It is displayed here at close to the standard thumb size (220px). AHeneen (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Worry. This is the base image. Labels need to be put adjacent to object not over it- as later these smooth areas are going to be replaced with shattered concrete and turgid water. Are we going to introduce an element of 3D ?--ClemRutter (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I'm using Illustrator, I created a version with the text as you suggested. (First image from left.) Just to note, I've been converting the text to shape objects because uploading to Commons always seems to screw up the text. @ClemRutter: I also did a couple of tests earlier (this is with the old version of the image, so ignore the text) which correspond to the 3rd and 5th panels in the infographic. It's just simplified representations of the damage. I don't think 3D imagery is needed, though if someone has experience that might be worth trying... Shannon 02:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shannon1 and AHeneen: Thanks for the great work. Just a note about terminology: technically, the spillway is the complete path from the lake to the river below. This consists of a control structure at the top, plus a water channel to the bottom of the hill. The main spillway has a row of 8 movable gates and a concrete-lined chute or flume that leads down to the river. (It's 178'-8" wide, ISTR.)

The emergency spillway has a simple immovable overflow lip, technically called a weir. and the water path is the bare hillside. It's 1713 ft wide, and divided into two parts: an ogee weir at a height of 901 ft AMSL (1 ft above the nominal 900 ft maximum reservoir capacity), and a slightly higher lip extending past the parking lot. (Also note that the flow starts at 901 ft AMSL, but the water level has to get appreciably higher to become significant. It reached about 903 ft in February, and the spillway was supposed to reach maximum design flow around 911 ft.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of this was already on the page- but as the terminology is important I have wrapped this in a efn and c&p to the article until a wiser decision is made. ClemRutter (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing to work on the new infographic in my sandbox here. Should be done in a day or two, if time allows. Anything I should correct or add, let me know. Shannon 02:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Shannon1 One issue though, is whether the entire infographic is necessary or whether there should just be a couple of images from the infographic used in the article. I mentioned in a comment above (with bulleted list) that one image for pointing out the location of structures would be very useful in the Background section and another illustrating the location of damage would be useful further down in the article. With regards to File:OROVILLE Infographic Test (Frame 5).svg, the non-text part of the image is incredibly good, but the labels are hard to read. At that point, the labels "spillway" and "emergency spillway" and "dam" are not absolutely necessary and could be removed to avoid visual clutter. Instead of text labels in the image, the erosion could be highlighted with a bright color and the label replaced with a mention in the caption, eg. "...caused significant erosion (red)...", and the new channel, river blockage, and repairs noted with numbers. AHeneen (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'm still going to create all six SVGs, but you're welcome to arrange them in the article as you see fit. (I wrote the original article for Oroville Dam by the way, I'm surprised at how much attention this event has gotten from other editors!) I'll also get rid of some of the repetitive labels, they are causing clutter. I do think that the table format could continue to be used in the main Oroville Dam article, as a condensed way to describe the situation. Shannon 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS:Inkscape style?

I am hoping to put this conversation into a tutorial booklet later, so can I ask some basic questions

• Do we have a MOS page for this type of infographic- and any RfC to guide us? What Document properties? I would set up as A7 Landscape- you favour square?
• What colour palette- I use Inkscape default - is there a Wikimedia preferred palette?
• Why DejaVu Sans? Why 11pt? I use FreeSans SemiBold for labels?
• What other advice do we have or need to have? --ClemRutter (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There is convention for maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions. This type of map would be a "Technical map" (see that section of the page), for which there is no standard other than the standards for maps generally. File:Maps template-en.svg has fonts and a color palette for use in maps generally (there are specific color palettes for some types of maps on the map conventions page). I used to be active on Wikivoyage and created a few maps, that project's guide recommended DejaVu Sans bold for main labels on maps so I guess that I have continued using that for maps (when I don't use the template svg). There was no particular reason for 11pt. AHeneen (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Excellent lead- I had never been to Wikivoyage. I loved the bit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Technical maps that said "This style of map doesn't have a convention yet, but needs one." I am now chasing Cynthia Brewer though I may have to clean up that page first. ClemRutter (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Please update the {{MOS|infographic|date=February 2017}} notice near the bottom of the article to {{MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images|date=February 2017}}, which will appear as {{MOS|infographic|explanatory text in the form of an image, which cannot be searched, styled, translated, or accessed by screen readers|#Avoid entering textual information as images}} That helps clarify what the issue is. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 15:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

I think it would be useful to explain that the concrete spillway can only be used when the lake is at a certain level (DWR says 817 feet, but one of your sources list 813.6 feet). At this point, the lake level is below the release gates. In any case, this is an important piece of data because if the level is below that figure (whatever it is), then the only way to drop the level any farther is through (1) the power station and (2) the bypass valve. Also, at some point, I believe it was said that not all tunnels at the power station are operational, and they may not be capable of releasing the 16,950 cfs. 2601:200:4200:C731:B905:7FC1:8F7:8362 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)