Talk:List of reservoirs by volume

Lake Victoria

Is the assumption here that Owens Falls Dam adds 205 km³ to Lake Victoria's natural volume of 2,750 km³? HowardMorland (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just came on this talk page to ask the same question. I don't think Lake Victoria belongs on the list. I am not sure how much volume the dam added but it certainly shouldn't be ranked #1 on the reservoir list. Only the volume the dam increase can be considered reserve.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus. kwami (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

List of reservoirs by volume → List of largest reservoirs in the world — Would it be better to move this article to the latter? And restrict entries to, say 25 km³ (6 cu mi)? The current header is too broad, and may one day eventually lead this list turning into another rotten pumpkin. Comments? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Volume is a word that should be in the title to indicate it is by volume and not surface area. The word largest could be misconstrued as largest by volume or area.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

True. Then how about List of largest reservoirs in the world by volume? Or, on a different perspective, how about having two top-25 (or whatever number) sections listing by volume and surface... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article into a surface area and volume chart is a good idea. I can't find a surface area list on Wikipedia and it is definitely a good compliment to what is in there now. With that, I would defnitely support "List of largest reservoirs in the world".--NortyNort (Holla) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Changing vote per Kwami (below). Also, adding "largest" is unnecessary precision. Nobody will reasonably expect an exhaustive list of all reservoirs. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Support, assuming inclusion of surface area list will be added to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing to move to List of largest reservoirs by volume (if we list vol only) or List of largest reservoirs (if we list by both), if you like. "in the world" is IMO not needed: WP has a global perspective, and where else would they be? — kwami (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I support the new name, with surface areas included as well. The best online reference I can find is here. As far as "world", article titles already have that precedent and I don't think it is necessary to remove it.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose On second thought, I withdraw my support. See List of lakes by area. List of lakes by volume. List of lakes by depth. List of rivers by length. List of rivers by discharge. List of islands by area. List of islands by population. List of mountains by elevation. List of peaks by prominence. List of cities by population. Etc. The current title fits the established pattern, and I see no reason why there should be difficulties here when there are none there. We just state in the lede that we list reservoirs down to a certain size; if an editor later wants to reduce that size, they can if they provide the necessary data. — kwami (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kwami. Maybe list of water reservoirs by volume, to be more specific, but otherwise the current title seems fine. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to "list of fat reservoirs by volume"? ;) — kwami (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope not! ;) Reservoir can indeed refer to a wide variety of things. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, an entirely separate article based on surface area?--NortyNort (Holla) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly; I haven't seen any "List of X by size". If we have two lists, why not have two articles? If we include both volume and area in one table, there will be many reservoirs that would only meet the criteria for one. If we include small but deep r's cuz of volume, editors will want to add other r's with larger areas that do not qualify, and vice versa. I think that's the reason the other articles are all divided. — kwami (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Surface area is definitely the other big "largest" factor.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know I'm generally not supposed to close requests that I voted on, but there clearly is no consensus here, and this is the oldest backlogged RfM. And if it were to move, it looks like it wouldn't be to the originally proposed name. A second request can be made if some other name is desired. — kwami (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort

This ought to be sorted in descending order by default, but I do not know how to do it. John85 (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The default order is the order that appears in the wikitext (see Help:Sorting#Sorting tables by default). The wikitext will have to be sorted manually. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I sorted it. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Source

Here is a direct link to the source from which most of the article is currently based on. Unfortunately this source sorts by year. Cheers though, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Luiz Eduardo Magalhães/Lajeado reservoir

ICOLD is listing it with 64.53 km3 volume. However i am not able to confirm that number from other source. --Jklamo (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dams that expand naturally occurring lakes should be included

There was some discussion years back about whether or not Lake Victoria's expansion should be included in the list. I say it should, but there should be a demarcation between expanded lake and fully-fledged reservoir. Maybe something like what List of reservoirs by surface area has going on would work for this article. Based on the definition that is used in the first line of the reservoir article, an impoundment from a dam, it sure does seem to me that these expansions should be included in this list.

I'll be working on some other refinements of this list, and will enact this change once these are finished. Jaywm (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Lake Superior for example is also a reservoir with lock and dam used to control the level. If the level is being controlled by man then the lake has become a reservoir. The same holds true for Lake Michigan and Lake Huron since Chicago's sanitary canel draws upon the lake and water is diverted ultimately to the Mississippi.

The question here must go back to the reservoir page where in terminology section we can read about active and live volume. Clearly the entire volume of Lake Superior is not held in reserve for a purpose. This begs us to examine the word we use reservoir. Unless the water can actually removed and used for some down stream purpose it makes no sense to use total volume. That is unless we wish use total volume. In that case we squarely see the problem. The top worlds largest reservoirs are not even listed on the page.

Suggestion is to create two sets of data. Reservoir largest by actual volume...reservoir largest by useful downstream volume. Notice I use downstream volume as my basis. Recreational boating is never the original purpose. Further flood control that simply prevents water flow...is not a reservoir unless that same water is releasable during dry season and used for downstream purposes like keeping the river full, navigation, crops etc.

Recently we saw something very important on Lake Mead. A third straw was addition of a new underground tunnel that allowed Las Vegas to draw water from the reservoir even if the water level dropped below intakes to the hydro electric plant. This changed the active volume greatly. Pbmaise (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actual and new volume issue

Think of this list like list of wealthiest living people. What matters is how wealthy they are now. Look at Lake Mead. The Bureau now lists Lake Mead at 32.2 km3. This must reflect years of silt and total capacity is down. However actual live storage is what matters, and that volume is way down due to drought. Yes it is difficult to updating this page each time, however, clearly Lake Mead drops on this list no matter how you consider it and we present wrong information that people use. Pbmaise (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Number 10?

Currently there is no number 10 on this list. Is that a ranking error, or has one of the dams been deleted from the list entirely? 24.69.201.248 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

10 was changed and re-numbered but not moved along with three others. I re-numbered them.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)