Talk:Water resource management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Revisions and additions to be made[edit]

I plan on adding some credibility via quality sources as well as do some edits to the more important parts of the article. I feel the article is not as up to date as it could be and some of the information may not be verified or incorrect. I welcome any comments or suggestions on additions or revisions that could be made. User:Jam56-NJITWILL —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC).


My mistake - the information wasn't actually removed, it was just pushed to the bottom of the page. BTW, Skirtania - you could consider creating an article on the conference if it's notable enough (having never heard of it before, I wouldn't know), but I don't think it's relevant enough to the subject of this article to be added to this page. It's a disambiguation page, so it's supposed to point to the different articles about water management, and the stuff you added should probably go on a separate article. --WPholic [ talk ] 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Article in great need of improvement[edit]

This article is seriously unbalanced and gives a very strange view of water management. The fact that the "See also" list is longer than the article is testimony to something very wrong. The latest edit I have moved over into the Water pollution article (on the discussion page for the moment) but the previous main edit re Agriculture and its use of water is also greatly unbalancing without some major structural inputs to balance it. Any thoughts how we could get this into some sort of shape?  Velella  Velella Talk   22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Juruena[edit]

I have left the following message to the above user who reverted my last edit. This user registered only 7 minutes before making this, his/her only contribution to date. It restores a version by Monsoon Waves. My comments are copied here as they relate to directly to this article.

In the paragraph you have just restored , can you please explain what it is supposed to mean ?

  • "special emphasis must be laid on sustainability and profitability" - by whom and for what purpose ?
  • "Sustainable water management means to limit resource spending to a renewable or replaceable degree " - what does this mean in plain English ?
  • "profitability is closely related to the infrastructure management." - what has this to do with water management ?
  • "An average of eighty per cent of the costs of any water management activity is originated by the infrastructure and independent from the transported volumes." - this is neither in plain English nor is it clear what it is intended to mean. It sounds as if it might be about water abstraction and treatment for drinking water. If so then that is not what water management is.

Are you by any chance the same person as Monsoon Waves?

In the absence of satisfactory answers I shall restore the edit you have removed.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The following response was posted to my talk page:
First of all I am not "Monsoon Waves", haven't edited this article before and my intention is not to defend my own contribution. I am even not a persistent contributor. So, no need to make a bogeyman. As I understood from the former version of this paragraph, the author argues that:
- water management is closely related to water economy and therefore sustainability needs to be achieved through profitability
- the major cost faktor in water management is the infrastructure management (pipes, dams, treatment plants, etc.)
- the infrastructure costs (construction, maintenance, etc.) are nearly invariant from the water volumes
Considering that water losses during transportation frequently amount to more than 40 percent even in industrialized countries, water management is much more complex than closing your tap and reusing waste water on a small scale.
If you think this paragraph should be improved, I am with you. I simply felt that you had replaced a meaningful text, which is obviously in line with the latest statements from scientists and international organisations, by some platitudes.
Best regards84.189.78.78 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This strongly suggests that there is a belief that Water Management relates solely to water supply and distribution. It does not. Water Management relates to all those management activities that relate to the whole water cycle from water resource management, water quality management, management of water for ecological diversity, management of water for leisure etc. etc. Hence my edits. Do you now agree ?  Velella  Velella Talk   10:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Velella:

1) I do not agree with your edit at all.
2) I am very disappointed not to hear any content related argument from your side.
3) No one ever said that the whole complex of water management can be reduced to a single facet as you insinuate.
4) It is impossible that a 4 lines paragraph would completey disbalance a whole article.
5) Why do you believe that aspects like economic viability and infrastructure management should be excluded from the topic?
6) Why are you trying to dishonour my contribution with your groundless suspicions? Is this a black sheep/white sheep bauble or the actual style on Wikipedia?
7) I beg your pardon for having interfered your struggle for hegemony with "Monsoon Waves", without previous permission.

May be it is completely useless to write these lines. I clearly understand that you are in a better position to put your will through than an occasional contributor like me. A "No admission for unauthorised persons" tag on your contributions could discourage people from contributing.

Kind regards Juruena (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"In an ideal world...rarely possible in practice."[edit]

This phrase, restored here, is an example of a contributor's opinion; the original removal was correct. It's the restoration that's wrong and this should be reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - but I am very happy to discuss it here so that we can reach a consensus. The change was made without any attempt at discussion which Is why I reverted the change and restored the original version.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed name change[edit]

The content of this article has since the inception of the article, addressed "Water resource management" and little else. This is fine in my book since management of water supply, management of waste water both sewage and industrial waste-water are all dealt with existing articles. The current title gives an ambiguously large sense of what it might cover. It is also noteworthy that the article Water resources covers very similar ground and it might be feasible to merge the two to provide a more complete view. However, that may be for the future. All I am proposing now is the name change to Water resource management. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The name change would reduce potential confusion. Merging the article with Water resources is worth exploring. Moreau1 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Done.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger with water resources?[edit]

I am picking up on Moreau1's suggestion from 2012. Should we explore merging this article with water resources? Should we put up this question also on the talk page of water resources? If not a merger, should we move content from the article of water resources to this article, when it refers to "management" aspects? EvMsmile (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly support a merge from here into Water resources. There is considerable duplication and overlap. If there are some general management issues not already addressed, a small additional section could possibly be added. However having re-read both articles, I believe the merge could very easily be achieved . Might I suggest that if this does go ahead, that the work is done section by section so that it is relatively easy for any editor to be satisfied that no significant isdues have been lost in the merge.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, the article on water resources is already quite long. Would it perhaps make sense to take out the pieces that relate to water resources management and integrate them into water resources management? I notice there is also a whole long chapter on water stress there even though there is a separate article for that, too. Should we take this discussion to the talk page of water resources now? EvMsmile (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)