Talk:Lake Hume

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lake Hume redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: New South Wales / Riverina

	Australia portal Lake Hume 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
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Riverina.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Dams

This redirect 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

Energy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles

Re:Merge[edit]

I'm not convinced. Most times where a lake is formed by a dam there are separate articles on Wikipedia for the two: Lake Dunstan and Clyde Dam, for instance, or Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. The article on the lake needs expanding, not merging. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd found your first example, I'd suggest merging them, too. The second is borderline, but the lake article is fairly short. In this case, there is hardly anything useful in Lake Hume that is not also in Hume Dam. In fact the dam article has more useful information about the lake than the lake article does! As counter to the "most times" part of your comment, I offer Lake Mulwala, Mount Bold Reservoir, Happy Valley Reservoir, Barossa Reservoir as articles covering both the dam wall and the retained water body. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if I can take care of some of the proposed merge backlog. Can this conversation move towards consensus one way or the other so the tag can be taken off or the articles merged? Tedernst 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view is still to merge, probably under the title of Lake Hume, but I don't feel strongly which name is primary (Hume Dam, Lake Hume, Hume Weir). I'd add the next upstream Dartmouth Dam as another example of lake and weir in the one article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the articles should be merged. Local residents use either name to describe and locate tje same place, Emily144.131.70.34 11:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge and suggest that seems to be the concensus above from admittedly only a ffew contributers over quite some time. The title is probably better to be Lake Hume as that is the body of water's official name.--A Y Arktos 10:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the merging of these two small articles. As a local I can agree with 144.131.70.34 that the two terms are used interchangeably. Blarneytherinosaur 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two articles into Lake Hume. A further clean-up is still required though. Mdhowe 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commenced a clean-up and, when complete, will look to migrate this article from Lake Hume to Hume Dam in line with work that I am doing on all man-made reservoirs in New South Wales. Articles exist for natural lakes (e.g. Lake Cowal, Lake Cargelligo, Wallace Lake, etc.). Yet where they are man-made reservoirs, the principal focus should be on the dam that created the lake and not the reservoir itself, unless it is culturally significant, e.g. Lake Burragorang, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, etc. Just because locals call it by one name doesn't mean that is the method that should be adopted here. Rangasyd (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]