Talk:List of dams and reservoirs in Canada

[Untitled]

I'd love to know, is this a COMPLETE list of all the dams in Canada? I don't see an "incomplete" anywhere here. So is this complete? Thanks.

It certainly wasn't until I added the TransAlta facilities in Alberta!

There are no reservoirs or dams listed in Ontario which has quite a few.

It's a complete list for Saskatchewan, as per the external link. Shanemcd 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural dams

Why are natural dams not included in this list? It would be more useful if they were included since it would be more complete. If natural dams are not included, I suggest the page whould be renamed to List of reservoirs and man-made dams in Canada. Black Tusk 04:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Other dam pages do not have to make the same specififcation and it's clear what they're about; e.g. List of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River. The barrier is also not really a dam; it happens to contain a lake but so would a chunk of ordinary granite forming a tarn; many lakes are formedby natural dams, or beaver dams, or bits of land that work as dams; some natural dams like the Stave Moraine (around McConnell Creek and near Davis Lake Provincial Park northeast of Mission no longer actively contain water (it goes around in that case) or as with the Seton Moraine the "dam" is still there but the water carved a way around it. Kamloops lake is "dammed" by ancient siltation deposits around Savona, Kootenay Lake prior to hydro development was "dammed" by a waterfall, and so on. You've reversed a deletion three times now; if I take it out that's a third time for me and I could be suspended for nixing what I don't think is a correct entry. I guess this is a matter for arbitration if no one else weighs in on it; I just think it's silly, and the stretching of a definition whose intended meaning is obvious.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re the Columbia River list's qualification; "hydroelectric, water storage and mining reservoirs and dams" makes things unwieldy (and I'd hesitate on including mine dams), but that's the obvious intent of this page; If you want to include natural dams next up would bev the Salmon Glacier up by Stewart, but that's only the tip of the not-quite-proverbial iceberg....Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, volcanic dam is used, see here and here. I know lots of natural dams are not named because they do not last forever and as I understand, they arn't really important, but The Barrier has been standing for about 9,000 years and is potentially dangerous and is classified as a lava dam.[1] [2] [3] The Barrier has been listed since 22 April last year, so it's most likely not a major problem. BTW Wikipedia is not a site where users can arbitrarily remove content they do not like, or you can't just remove it because you do not like it, such as what you said above: If I take it out that's a third time for me and I could be suspended for nixing what I don't think is a correct entry. Black Tusk 20:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that was going to happen I said that it was possible it could, as admins watch this stuff neutrally and note such reversals; it would have been a chicken-and-egg thing, who did what first; you put it in, I took it out, you put it back in, I took it out, you put it back in; were I to proceed it would be a third deletion and _I_ would get suspended, potentially, except that my deletes were in line with the content of related/similar articles, and I'd asked you NOT to hbe put it back in without considering the point of this page. And again, sortability/category has a lot to do with it; as well as what is and isn't a natural dam. Penticton, or the land Penticton on, is a natural dam, for instance...Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no wiki lava dam, volcanic dam or natural dam articles, which would fall under both Category:Dams and Category:geohazards as well as (in the first two cases, really one as one would be aredirect to the other) Category:Volcanic features or whatever. Sure, there's Quake Lake in Montana (just east of Yellowstone) and lots of natural dams around North America - lots and lots - and not a few in BC, but if you look at List of dams and reservoirs in California you'll see there are no non-manmade dams on there. The point with Wiki articles is sortability, y'see - a list containing The Barrier would have to be in volcano categories as well as in dam/hydroelectric/power generation categories; they're two different beasties entirely, both in article content (however the title might be tweaked) as well as in category-sortability. It's easy enough to create List of natural dams, even List of volcanic dams and List of glacial dams even, alluvial dams, rockslide dams (Seton Portage is one) and put a "see also" here and a mention on Dam (disambiguation). As with a reply to OMR elsewhere tonight, I'm not being personally obstinate; I'm responding to what I know are wikiworld expectations and practices; the Barrier is not the same kind of dam as Daisy Lake, point blank, same as The Table is not the same as a table; different categories, different contexts, different natures. I recommend List of natural dams for now, with "cause" in one of the fields, so volcanic/rockslide/glacier etc can be labelled; if there's enough of one kind or the other split off another list; it's all about the categories; and examples of other artifcles like List of dams and reservoirs in California.Skookum1 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK great you['ve made Volcanic dam today; but that still doesn't mean it has anything to do with hydroelectric and water/flood control/storage dams, nope.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Go and look at Category:Lists of dams and browse the articles in them, as to what kinds of dams are intended....Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because not a lot of natural dam articles have been made. I thought it would be a problem if there was a "List of natural dams" article because there's not a lot of natural dam articles (it would be all red links). The volcanic dam article still needs expansion and yes it does have something to do with water; it dams water and can create large floods if impounding a large lake. Black Tusk 06:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not because natural dam articles weren't written, it's because the people who wrote all those articles were thinking of mandmade dams only. Period. The issue, as said before, is categorization. List of natural dams is waiting t be made, and it can be in other categries than this one would be. And that's that.Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

here's anther natural dam; the site is the ft f Kamlps Lake; ditt with Pentictn; ditto any number of lake outlets. All to do with water, all potentially flood-making structures. And tehre's mroe than that (google Salmon Glacier), and also dams like the Stave and Seton moraines which n longer block a lake/river. They're all over teh place. Something being volcanic doesn't make it any more special as a dam (except to volcano fans), nor does its potential to let o it the same thing as the hydroelectric dams. Given your obstinacy about this I guess I'm going to have to recruit input from the "comments requested" section of the Canada WikiProject; muddying definitions by extending them to cover whatever you want is not a wiki principle.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted it to cover whatever I want. I mean, what's the point of having numerous lists about different types of dams while a single list can cover all types of dams? It's similar to redundancy; when there's a redundant article you merge the article into the parent article, same for the categories. The people who created all those articles were only thinking of manmade dams most likely because they are more important. But there are lots of natural dams as well. Black Tusk 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But they don't share the same categories, that's the point. You're mixing apples and oranges just because they're both fruit.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And defining natural dams is problematic, which ones are notable, what constitutes a natural dam etc. And there's hundreds of them (if that few).....03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

This is supposed to be a list of manmade structures. The Barrier would be a completely appropriate addition to a list of geographic features, but it really, truly shouldn't be intermingled with manmade structures — it wasn't created the same way, and doesn't serve the same purpose. As a naturally-occuring geographic feature resulting from volcanic activity, The Barrier really truly has far more in common with Manitou Islands (Lake Nipissing) than it does with any dam appearing on this list. Bearcat (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Perhaps someone should make the List of natural dams article then. Black Tusk 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever back. I've hinted that at you two or three times; easy enough to make a list, boyo, esecially if it's a topic you want to see in print.Skookum1 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Tusk, is there any conceivable reason why the somebody who does that can't be you? Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't know too many natural dams (I only know The Barrier). Maybe if there were more articles about natural dams it would be a lot easier to make the "list of natural dams" article. But since there isn't a lot of natural dam articles made, I'm not going to make the list anytime soon which was one of the reasons why I thought it would be a good idea to include The Barrier and other natural dams to this article. Black Tusk 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tr putting an article request on the Georgraphy of Canada WikiProject; and don't forget that natural dams can include ones that are archaic/no longer functioning as dams; it's a landform feature, Category:Landforms would seem to be the grandparent category, or something like it as ell as Category:Dams as one of the more-than-one potential parent categories. What will happen, over time or even quickly, is people will write them, or just identify existing landform articles as belonging in the Natural Dams in Canada category; I suggest you locate a few others, glacial or otherwise and then lobby in the appropriate location for approval of tghe new cat....Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes might be just thte place to ask, also Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. For one thing there's that theory about the Lake Missoula ice dam that let go and roared a huge torrent over the Columbia Plteau. Likewise the slide at Texas Creek maybe the same as today's http://www.cayoosh.net/bigslide.html Big Slide on Highway 12], IK'm not sure, which blocked off the Fraser to make the benchlands in the Pavilion area out of what had been lakebottom, about 8000 years ago; Seton Portage would qualify as a natural dam as well as, er, Ancient disasters in Canada (a disaster is what happens after a geohazard...). Alaska there's some for sure, and I'll stub up Salmon Glacier I guessbut I think some definitions ahve to be trotted out and the natural dam has to be defined/ Thing with the lakes and rivers wikiprojects is they're worldwide and there'll be peple out ther who know of examples, maybe there's already suitable articles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's not a Category:Geohazards in British Columbia there should be; there's more than enough to justify a cat; I think [[:Category:Geohazards in Canada] must exist, The Barrier certainly deserves to be in it and I guess already is, I haven't noticed). Category:Disasters in British Columbia would also, if it exists, apply; and remember it doesn't have to just bev stuff in the post-Contact period; Meager getws bhoth of those catgories, for instance; I should stub up Mount Breakenridge, which would if it lets go launch a megatsunami in Harrison Lake, possibly wiping out Bellingham as well as Chilliwack...non-volcanic, waiting for a temblor; also the case with Boston Bar Mountain in teh Fraser Canyon, which might become a natural dam if it comes down in the right shake-up; the resulting lake could extend anywhere from just to Lytton or Lillooet/Ashcroft, or all the way up to Williams Lake; if it does that, it'll flood out Kamloops....depends on how much rock were to come down.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find examples of natural dams in Glacial lake outburst flood and in addition to the Salmon Glacier there's the Tulsequah Glacier - read this. Iceland almost certainly has some lava or volcanic dams, some associated with these outburst floods; look up Vatnajokull. Also Hawaii for volcanic dams, I'd think, though not on major rivers; then there's the Lava diversion dams the Italians experiment with around Etna....dams for lava; if only effective in diverting and not stopping....Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Natural disasters in British Columbia exists as a subcategory. Another problem making the list is a lot of natural dams aren't named, making it hard to find info and create an aricle about a certain natural dam.... The Barrier and Seton Portage would be included in the list for sure. Black Tusk 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there are only a handful of Wiki articles that use the term geohazard, which doesn't have an article; I've put a request in on the science-requests page but unsure if I put it in the right list.....obviously something that could use an article (I nominate you). I've added the NatDisaster cat to Seton Portage and Meager, thinking it's time to write Dimlahamid and Medeek because of this, and wondering what else....oh yeah, the collapse of Arthur's Seat at Spences Bridge in the 1800s, wiped out a reserve right in front of eyewitness rail passengers; I'll put the natdisaster cat on the Spences Bridge page until such time as there's a separate article on the slide. The ancient Texas Creek Slide needs an article, as does Keatley Creek archaeological site which has to do with it. There's also another BIG slide chute on Anderson Lake, I'll find out when it collapsed if that's known....didn't notice if the Port Alberni tsunami is in the natdisaster cat in any way; it won't be appropriate to put the cat on Good Friday Earthquake, I don't think, as that was in Alaska despite having effects here....Hurricane Hazel also comes to mind....I wonder what else?Skookum1 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Hazel I guess...there was a typhoon hit BC in the late '50s/early '60s, I remember having to cower on the floor....must have been the early '60s 'cause I remember which house it was in. Prob doesn't have an article; as with other storms, like the Xmas '96 one that locked down Victoria with 12' of snow and brought hurricane-force outflow winds to the Central/Upper Fraser Valley.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tableformat

This should probably be in a table so reservoirs can be listed alongside their dams, with latlong locations and also comments and alternate-name columns; any objections?Skookum1 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal

Please see a discussion here regarding the renaming of this article and similar ones.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of dams and reservoirs in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013113129/http://www.bchydro.com/bcrp/about/docs/ch15_final.pdf to http://www.bchydro.com/bcrp/about/docs/ch15_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)