Template talk:Infobox dam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Goodnough Dike

This template seems to work fine. I added it to Goodnough Dike. -- LymanSchool 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Parameters

Added some parameters for reservoir info. Hope I didn't break anything though I note this template is experimental anyway.-- Jeza 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolf Creek Dam

Seems to work. Did change the way the header is. Trying it on Wolf Creek Dam.--Zuejay 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template should be country-neutral

Please make this template country-neutral. The layout can also be improved a bit and coor-title can be added. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very good with templates - could you be more specific on how to make it country-neutral? And what is "coor-title"? Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The template gives examples of San Francisco, Indiana-Kentucky State Line, "2 lanes of US Route 1", "foot traffic". This is not something a non-US reader is familiar with. Clear examples should be given without naming a country entity. Also, region:US_type should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Further suggestions:

• Template header colour be improved. See Koyna Dam. I used the colours from the German WP.
• Coo-header refers to the coordinates that come on top of the page. See Mumbai, and the corresponding infobox {{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}}. The layouting should be something like {{Geobox Mountain Range}} Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did the original work on this. The layout was taken from the {{Infobox bridge}} and should track changes, if any, there. The "US_type" is to show how to use the coor template, which is included to show what is expected for the coordinates parameter. I will attempt to make the other items more balanced. Note that everything you commented on is merely the example, and does not reflect the actual template, so you would not have risked damaging the template editing the examples. --J Clear 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually US_type is the end of one parameter and the beginning of another. I added a link in the parameters to the explaination of the use. Although now it looks like the whole {{coor}} family of templates has been superceded by {{coord}}, so the cut and paste should probably by changed after testing. --J Clear 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The _US params seem to be embedded. See Kolkewadi Dam where the Maps and aerial photos link points to a US region. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, I guess I hadn't seen an example of using lat/lon vs. coordinates params that is truly ugly the way it is now. And since it was in the original version, I probably copied it out of {{Infobox bridge}} without a thought. I'll go play with that in my sandbox for a bit and straighten it out. I'll omit the region tag, which seems not to do much yet. The savvy can just use coordinates instead. --J Clear 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorted! Check out Kolkewadi Dam now. Although somebody needs to edit the captions on the images. --J Clear 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more changes needed (I'm modelling my sugestions based on Template:Geobox Mountain Range:

• I'm looking for the same style used by Template:Geobox Mountain Range. Row size, font size etc. Could this be done?
• Secondly height, width and length do not display their units. This is very important. Could this be also sorted?

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Every template in wikipedia does not have the same formatting. Usually you will find consistant formatting withing a wiki project or group/family of projects. {{Geobox Mountain Range}} uses a class called "infobox geography", which is consistent for that project. While dams may be as large as some geographic features they are generally man made. If you have the time to change this template, I suggest using the formatting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/infobox. In fact copying over the formatting is a great way to learn about such, but do so in a sandbox first, so that you only make on final edit to the real template. Changing a template causes the wikipedia servers to do a recalculation of the pages that use it, so testing edits directly with a popular template is frowned upon.

As far as the units, this template displays the units and conversion if the editor includes them in the Article, see Conowingo Dam. {{Geobox Mountain Range}} uses extra coding and two sets of paramters to "relieve" the editor of this horrible chore. This increases complexity and size, reducing maintainability, for a debatable amount of gain. This gets back to the "not all infoboxes are the same theme". The editor of Kolkewadi Dam made incorrect assumptions about the template they chose. You could add the same mechanism here, but then you'd need two entirely new sets of parameters for each, as you couldn't assume anything about the old usage being metric or imperial. Or you could go back and edit the 75 or so usages, too, but you'd still double the number of parameters.

Also bear in mind that larger, more complicated templates are not necessarily better. There is some debate about "template bloat". Like "external links", everyone adds their pet paramter or pet trick to the infobox, until they become much larger than most articles and unmaintainable. And ${DIETY} help you if you try to trim out some later.--J Clear 14:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Country neutral: Good idea. Peter Horn 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Infobox

I just made Template:Japan dam, which is a translation of the Japanese Dam infobox. It's built pretty well. They have an entire Dam WikiProject even. If someone wants to use this for other dams, I can translate the variable names, so it would give the exact same appearance but be more usable in worldwide dams (this would dictate making a new template), but my current plans are just to use this to copy Japanese dam pages. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't "spit" templates this way; add the desired fields to the existing template. I've nominated it for deletion, but suggest that you pre-empt that, and move it to your user space while you work on the existing template. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD isn't displaying correctly - please fix it so I can concur or not. Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is reservoir_capacity needed to display the other vars?

I was just looking at one dam article where it looked like the volume was known but not the capacity. Isn't it more a hindrance to have the display of further variables linked to one that may not be known? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question? ZueJay (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this:

{{#if: {{{reservoir_capacity|}}}|
    ! colspan="2" {{!}} Reservoir information
    {{!}}-
    ! Capacity
    {{!}} {{{reservoir_capacity}}}
    {{!}}-
    {{#if: {{{reservoir_catchment|}}}|
    ! Catchment area
    {{!}} {{{reservoir_catchment}}}}}
    {{!}}-
    {{#if: {{{reservoir_surface|}}}|
    ! Surface area
    {{!}} {{{reservoir_surface}}}}}
}}

be this?

{{#if: {{{reservoir_capacity|{{{reservoir_catchment|{{{reservoir_surface|}}}}}}}}}|
    ! colspan="2" {{!}} Reservoir information
    {{!}}-
}}
{{#if: {{{reservoir_capacity|}}}|
! Capacity
{{!}} {{{reservoir_capacity}}}}}
{{!}}-
{{#if: {{{reservoir_catchment|}}}|
! Catchment area
{{!}} {{{reservoir_catchment}}}}}
{{!}}-
{{#if: {{{reservoir_surface|}}}|
! Surface area
{{!}} {{{reservoir_surface}}}}}

Does that make sense? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think you're right. Although, some of that is simply TMI. I've played more with the Japan Dam template in my User:Zuejay/sandbox3 and, subsequently, trimmed it way down. Right now I think all the "road info" in this template is overkill; that's why the "Note" section on Japan Dam is so useful. ZueJay (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Date of Destruction

There are many Dams that are 'closed' but not destroyed. Bloede dam is one of them I know of and I know there are loads more. These Dams may no longer be serving the purpose they were originally built to serve but not necessarily destroyed. Yet if I enter a value for the "Closing" date it comes up "Destruction Date". It used to be a Hydro-Electric Dam. Even though it no longer serves it's purpose as a generation facility it is still there! An option should be added as a closing date but not necessarily a destruction date because that is not always the case. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changed

I suggest changing locale to location because this is a more common term that people understand better. Also do we really need the co-ords duplicated in the header and the infobox. I prefer using the coor title template outside of the infobox. Any problems with that? :: maelgwn - talk 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please fit in

• Installed capacity:
• Number of generators: 6
• Hydraulic head: )
• Reservoir: n/a (run-of-river)

Peter Horn 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Dam

Coordinates	50°01′01″N 90°01′01″W
Dam and spillways
Height	Sample

Why does the template refuse to distinguish between |height= and |hydraulic_head=  ??? Can this be fixed? Peter Horn 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Extras for the template

Might I suggest adding a little extra, as has been done with the Religious Building infobox? Specifically a parameter that would allow some sort of historic designation to be noted in the infobox? It's been done for the NRHP before, and so far as I know that's the only one around at the moment. I just think it would be great to have to clear up infobox clutter. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clean up case problems

{{editprotected}} Since this template is currently write-protected, could an administrator please fix the case problems in this template; namely:

• Construction Ccost
• Installed Ccapacity
• Maximum Ccapacity
• Annual Ggeneration

so that our featured page for today doesn't show the world just how bad we are at following our own style guide? And while they're at it, please decode the following:

• AADT → Annual average daily traffic

Wikipedia isn't paper, so there's no point in being cryptic, even in the infoboxes. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Extras for the template (2010 Jan)

Could the following be considered:

1. Type of dam, e.g. Rockfill dam with inclined clay core
2. Type of spillway
3. Discharge capacity of spillway
4. Max Water Depth

I have used the extra field for these parameters in editting Manjirenji Dam.Babakathy (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done These fields are added. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hydroelectric power stations

Lot of dams are for hydroelectric production and integrated with the hydroelectric power station. We have two different infoboxes: template:Infobox dam and template:Infobox power station. It is not practical to add both of these infoboxes to the single article and I think we should use the infobox dam which should include also relevant information related to the power generation and the hydroelectric power station. Most impoertant part of this information is already integrated into this inobox. However, some more information is needed. I propose to add following fields:

1. Date of commissioning of the power station (could be different than opening date for the dam)
2. Decommissioning of the power station. There are cases that the power station is decommissioned and dam is continued be used for irrigation purposes).
3. Owner of the power station (could be different than owner of the dam. It is particularly actual on border rivers where the dam is owned jointly or by one country while the power station is owned by other country or company).

"Operator of the power plant. In some cases, the owner and operator are different legal entities. E.g., power station could be owned by the government, but the right to operate it is granted to some company.

1. In some cases, the power station may be pumped storage power station, which is a specific type of hydroelectric power station. I should be worth of mentioning in the infobox if this is a case.
2. If these fields are added, the creation of redirects from template:Infobox hydroelectric power station and template:Infobox hydroelectric power plant to this template could be useful.

Beagel (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done These fields are added. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps

This infobox currently allows display of a static map in the form of an image, but sometimes an image is not supplied. Can this template make use of on-the-spot generated maps, using the {{Location map}} template? For examples of infoboxes that do such, see {{Infobox NRHP}} and {{Infobox Historic Site}}. Those infoboxes use the coordinates a use inputs to create a pushpin map showing the location of whatever the article is about. I think it would be a great addition to this infobox..

If nothing else, at least make the map take up both columns... it looks kind of tacky right now. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I will have a look in a bit, or feel free to mock something up in the sandbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it in the sandbox later.. I'm very busy right now at least until Thursday night-ish, so I probably won't have time to do it before then..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just worked something up at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox. If coordinates are provided (in decimal or dms now), they will be shown. If a new parameter, "locmapin" is set to some value (valid values found at Template:Location map), a map will be displayed with a pushpin on it. An example can be found at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox3. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I merged a slightly modified version. The only changes were to use "location_map" for the parameter, shorter parameter names for lat, long, ... (per {{Geobox}} and {{Infobox settlement}}, although I know nrhp uses longer ones), and some centering around the location map, and I removed the optional bgcolor, since it's not documented. I think we can merge the multiple coordinates statements and we need to be able to disable to "title" display in case someone is using both this and nrhp to avoid clashes in the title bar. Thanks for the great suggestion and hard work. Feel free to tweak it if necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! NRHP infobox can suppress title display if needed, so this shouldn't need it too.. but if it's desired, I can code it up. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, I believe I fixed most of the bugs (see Longhorn Dam for example). Now, decimal coordinates can be specified using lat_d and long_d, making lat and long unnecessary. I updated the documentation so it should be clear how to use all the parameters. Much of the code was copied from {{Infobox settlement}}, including the use of {{Geobox coor}} which simplifies much of the coord logic. In any event, it appears to be working now, and I can check this off the todo list. Thanks for all your help. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Great work. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Location map

I reverted the change to Location map2. Please discuss here first. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See documentation of Template:Location map2. Template:Location map Canada gives large error. And Template:Location map do not work with Template:Location map Canada1.--Амба (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Plant type

Hi. With regard to the | type = entry, wouldn't it be better if we rename it to | dam type = (for types of dams), and add | plant type = (below | plant_operator =) for the different generating methods for dams that produce hydroelectricity? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest fields such as the one already for "pumped_storage" where an editor can put yes or no. If an editor put pumped-storage in an open field, a reader could assume that 100% of the power production and all generators are pumped storage which is not always the case.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you have a point. I wrote the above with the intention to allow this infobox to support power stations using any of the four generating methods. Perhaps we could change the field to | plant types =, to list multiple types? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Would the four below cover the generating methods?

| pumped_storage =

| run_of_river =

| conventional =

| tide =

--NortyNort (Holla) 07:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean as "Yes/No" fields? Yea, that would work perfect. :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can make edits to the template ourselves, I assume? --NortyNort (Holla) 13:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can, this is the free encyclopedia! :) But then, for me to do it myself, I am not that familiar with editing infoboxes, and is currently too lazy to learn. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'll give it whirl here soon. I also think it would be a good idea to include the actual volume of the dam structure.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

List of largest dams is based on volume of structure, so that would seem to be a good element to add to the infobox. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the whirl worked, volume is now a field. As well as tide, run-of-the-river and conventional.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Live and dead storage

Under reservoir information, I think the infobox should have live and dead storage. As it is an important factor for reservoirs and it would be good for a reader to see this in the article if the info is available.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

i've always been confused as to what live storage is… dead storage I know but live storage, is it average pool, full pool, or something? And also "conservation pool" and all that stuff… So what is live storage? Shannon^talk _contribs 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Live storage is the opposite of dead storage as it is the amount of water in a reservoir that can be discharged by gravity for purposes (releases, power, etc). Live storage varies as it starts at the dead storage level and ends at up at surface level. Specifications for live storage, unless noted, are usually measured at normal pool. However, silt and sediment skew the numbers over the years and the storage capacities on some older dams or ones on really silty rivers may not be precise. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Generating methods

Hi. I have a small concern with the |Run-of-the-river=Yes type parameters. A very large percentage of the readers viewing dam articles don't exactly know the four types of hydroelectric generating methods. So if we just put a |Pumped-storage=Yes kind of thing, in most cases it wouldn't make sense.

What do you think if I change the four parameters to:

• |Type=

Where we type in any of the four relevant entries. Comments? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be similar to the "technology=" field in the PowerStations infobox. It's contrary to the discussion above though and all the templates that were changed in articles would have to be fixed. I'm fine with what we have now and like the four different types for three reasons: 1) You w/l'd the types in the template so a reader can click those if they are confused. 2) Someone making and article who is unfamiliar with dams already has the four types in front of them, so the are less likely to put something wrong in the field. Also, they don't have to w/l it, the template does. 3) If the dam utilizes more than one method, the box won't be cramped.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Thanks. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I change the current links of pumped-storage, run-of-the-river, and tidal, to all be pointing to [Hydroelectricity#Generating methods]? In that way, clicking them would not lead them to enter the article directly, but instead, would first show a summary of the four main types, (where the "main article" links are provided). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea, it is a small section, so most likely they would see all four types. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I have changed the links. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox is rather long

The infobox seems to be very long (in terms of page depth). In some articles, the infobox stretches beyond the text proper; no not stubs. Is there any way to compress it? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All I can think of is making the text size small. There are a lot of fields in the infobox without getting too technical, so I wouldn't support removal of any. I agree it can be long, especially for stubs. Maybe it is good encouragement to expand them?--NortyNort (Holla) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of bringing this topic up too. We could also, for now, reduce the cell size and font size. Thats what I did to Infobox power station, which once had the same sizes as this. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the text and cells smaller, similar to the power station infobox. I think it looks good.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the power station infobox, I have now converted the entire template formatting to reflect the standard {{Infobox}} style; the box now looks at least a bit smaller.

Also just wondering, only a few dams articles can make use of the "Bridge" section, as most doesn't easily come with this info (or doesn't have this features), or are not located in the US (for specific slots). Any comments on completely removing that section (while retaining the support for existing articles)? It would shrink the box considerably... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox NRHP that was embedded in the dam infobox at Hoover Dam seems to not be showing anymore. I can't tell why in your diff. As far as the bridge, I vaguely remember a few articles using it but I never did. With that, I don't see much of a use for it. Yes, it can be filled but often the information isn't easily provided in sources. I am neutral on its removal, if it is used, it is used.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the NRHP display. Perhaps we could discuss in a more formal procedure once the real need comes to shorten the infobox and remove the bridge. I am ok with the way it is. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're getting good at this, you should add it to your résumé. The only article I found with a bridge was Three Gorges Dam. As far as length, the only time I think that would be a problem is when it is in an article.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ;) As for "the only time I think that would be a problem is when it is in an article", I'll take it as the need has already arrived. ;) I have removed the bridge information (while retaining its support for articles already using it) by this single edit. Please do feel free to revert if you disagree on its removal. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate boxes?

Was just thinking if separate child infoboxes (like Infobox Power Station) would be useful for each of the four main types of power stations this infobox currently supports. I thought of this when I came across pumped-storage and barrage-tidal plants (which this box currently serves). For PS, we currently use a <br> or such to add different upper/lower reservoirs, and maybe other entries too. For tidal-barrage plants, we could have tidal range, etc. Barrages also don't have spillways, different crest/base widths, and some others which the same box covers.

It would be a cool change. But we should have at least four unique features of each type to make some sense in having separate boxes. I could find for tidal, but can't figure out four for the other three... Comments? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I really like the upper/lower reservoir idea for a pumped-storage power station. PSPs are gaining popularity in some countries and I think their use and subsequent article creation will increase. I would suggest working this into Infobox Power Station for the best effect though because both reservoirs are directly involved in the plant's operation, not necessarily each dam. Most PSP articles I see, like Kannagawa Hydropower Plant, use Infobox Power Station. If each of the dams that create the upper and lower reservoirs have their own article then great but the power station would be the only out of the three that would require such in their infobox. The Grand Coulee Dam has a PSP and although it is part of the overall scheme there, it is a separate plant that actually could warrant its own (sizable) article. Also, some PSPs, like Kannagawa are far from at least one of the reservoirs, others, like Smith Mountain Dam have both reservoirs adjacent to the dam. Smith Mountain also operates conventionally most of the time too. A lot of it is dependent on the scheme but I think most often, Infobox Power Station would benefit the best from this distinction.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, will work on a PS infobox at T:IPS. What do you think of the tidal-barrage? Conventional and ROTR has mostly to do with dams, and as you said (and I agree), PS mostly has to do with its power station than its dams. Tidal-barrages are also very much like rotr dams IMO, so I think it should stick to the dam box. What do you think?

Yea, I think a tidal range is important to the operation of a tidal power plant, so I think a field for that is important. It is important like hydraulic head. By the way, I was thinking the other day that head should be in the power station portion of Infobox dam. It does pertain mostly to a dam's power plant and is a major factor in the hydropower equation.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the head change. What I meant in the first comment is whether its a good idea to create three (not counting PS per above) separate child boxes like T:IPS. It wouldn't take much effort to create and doesn't require any sort of updates to be performed to the existing articles that use the box. This box also didn't go through any merges before, so we won't have to go through the hassle like T:IPS did.

The current box can be assigned to "Conventional", and I think we should have a separate box for tidal-barrages, as most fields doesn't match with the its features. Thing is, I don't seem to be able to come up with any unique feature for a ROTR infobox to separate it from Conventional... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, seperate Infobox Dams. I am trying to think of what data would be different. With the PSPs, I think that data would apply for the most part to Infobox Power Station. With conventional, the data applies to the current Infobox Dam set-up. With ROTR, I can't think of specific data as well, just lower dams, smaller reservoirs. Some ROTR plants, like Beles Hydroelectric Power Station and Gilgel Gibe II Power Station don't have a dam (maybe a sluice gate), so they don't require an Infobox Dam, just Infobox Power Station. Tidal seems to be the one with a specific input, tital range, and that can be put in Infobox Dam and explained in the documentation. I know it is a big infobox, I don't see reason to split the entire thing up.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea you're right. I too don't see a strong reason for splitting. Will create the PSP infobox and T:IPS shortly, and will add the tidal specific detail(s) to this infobox. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Created the PSP box, let me know what you think; suggestions, criticism, etc. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, I made just one little change. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that was meant to be "Pumping units"; the number of units that pump water back to the reservoir. But it also seems like I forgot the key field; the generating units! ;) I'll add another field soon. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They are usually called pump-generators because of the combined set-up: usually a Francis turbine, can reverse from electric generation to water pumping via a generator. See diagram here. With that, I don't see a major need for two fields.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh my bad my bad. Then let me "reverse" my brain cells and fix that again... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Included all three fields, in case a plant doesn't use the same unit. Updated doc description to reflect this. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Autoconverting fields

Hi. I could change the fields to auto convert (such a "length" to automatically convert from, say km to mi). But that change would show incorrect info on some pages using this template with an outdated field. Know of any workarounds? Or is this change not important at the moment? Rehman 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I could see adding this as an option, say using a |length_km= and |length_mi= parameter. However, just as a warning, the {{convert}} template is not the way to go at the moment. Its transclusion depth is so large that it will almost certainly break, or at least break on the doc page. Templates like {{km to mi}} don't have this problem. For an almost certain overcomplicated example, see {{Infobox islands}}. Rather than doing this, I think it would be less complicated to just have a bot go through the pages and add the necessary unit conversion templates where they are missing. This solves the problem of people complaining that their particular favourite unit is not supported. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe its not that a good idea to add it. Two more fields from one field is not a good thing for an already-large template like this. ;) Thanks for transclusion info. Kind regards. Rehman 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this template and convert

Yes, it appears we have now hit the transclusion depth, see Hoover Dam. Unfortunately, to fix these red errors we either need to (a) reduce the transclusion depth of {{convert}} and/or (b) remove the subclassing from this template. Each time you subclass, you add 2 to the transclusion depth, and convert is so deep that it cannot tolerate more than 3 total. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: I don't get it, it is currently showing in almost all articles I see, (Random example).

Per your comment above: I don't really understand this subclassing thing. If it was to do with that, why isn't (does it?) the power station box having any problems, since it is pretty much the same as this infobox? Rehman 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You only see it when the {{convert}} template is being used at a level of four or higher. For example,{{infobox}} adds 2 levels since it calls {{infobox/row}}. If you subclass, you double this to four levels. Another example, would be if you use the {{documentation}} template which adds 3 levels. The reason you don't see it for "power station" is that people aren't using the convert template within one of the subboxes, or the automatic unit rounding feature isn't being invoked. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, now thats a problem. What do you think we should do to fix it? Rehman 15:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One hack is to do this, but that's really not the solution. The better solution is to either (a) remove the subclassing from this template and/or (b) fix convert. Unfortunately, fixing convert will take more effort and will require more testing since it is used so frequently. I believe that fixing convert is the long term solution, but for now, we could just remove the subclassing from this template. By the way, you can find many of these errors by checking Category:ParserFunction errors. That category is filled with many false positives, but when it starts to balloon in size it's a clue that something happened with one of the infobox templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I believe we could remove the subclasses in this infobox, but we definitely cannot (can we?) do that for the power station box, due to the number of fields in use. I did try doing this, but it didn't work out. Know another way around? Its getting late, I will be off now and will be back in about 8 hours. See you later. Rehman 16:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I still plan to fix {{convert}}, but until then, this box is working fine again (as far as I can tell). By the way, I am developing a script that will help with the renumbering headache whenever you want to add a field. Currently it has two options, (1) double all the numbers, and (2) remove gaps in numbers. Unfortunately, it doesn't understand subboxes at the moment, but I am working on it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I look forward to see a fixed {{convert}} and an easier way of infoboxing ;) Kind regards. Rehman 00:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Power station type

I know we've discussed this before, but I'd like another go. Currently we use three fields:

• conventional
• run_of_river
• tide

All to use one content, Yes. I'd like to hear your opinions on changing these three fields to power_station_type, which would state any one of the three types. We could also have autofilling params that trigger:

• C=Conventional
• R=Run-of-the-river
• T=Tidal barrage

--Rehman 13:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems like it would shrink the documentation and make it more simple. I would include a hidden comment in the documentation that helps users know what to put. Would such a change mess up the existing fields that are filled?--NortyNort (Holla) 05:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would definitely not affect any other field. Rehman 08:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have added the feature in good faith, please feel free to revert, or notify here, if its causing any trouble. Kind regards. Rehman 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate template

There's a discussion on deleting a template that duplicates this template. Your input is appreciated. Rehman 06:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change to "Locale"

Hi folks. Could we please consider changing the fieldname "locale" to the more internationally recognised and more accurate "location" or "locality". I believe "locale" is very much American vernacular for "locality", but it is rare in Europe and possibly elsewhere. Also, according to the international Oxford Dictionary of English, "locale" is strictly "a place where something happens" or "has particular events associated with it" i.e. it's more like a "venue", whereas the other two terms are just used for the place, position or site of something. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt. Since this is not that controversial, and since this was brought up before, I went ahead with the change. If anyone has any problems with it, feel free to revert. Kind regards. Rehman 13:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons

MOS:FLAG says: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Therefore, some project (e.g. WP:Energy for template:Infobox power station) have successfully implemented User:AnomieBOT to replace these flag icons with country names. I propose to use this bot also for replacing flag icons with country names for this infobox. Before making a request for running AnomieBOT for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments. Beagel (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I support flag icons in infoboxes because a) they are instantly recognisable and b) they take up less room. Be aware that MOS:FLAG is highly controversial and driven by "flag burners" who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try not to put words in other people's mouths; I'm a "flag burner" but my motives are very nothing to do with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Agreed that MOS:FLAG is highly controversial, but I fear the rest of your characterisation may have been coloured by the fact that you don't agree with current consensus.

Personally, I could live with little flag pictures in dam infoboxes as long as they are accompanied by the name of the country, in text, for accessibility reasons (they're not always recognisable and they are not a good substitute for text). Also, we should bear in mind that the little flag pictures do tend to be magnets for nationalist editwarring; although this is much less likely to be a problem with a dam than with, say, a sportsman. (Go find an article on a random Scottish athlete and I bet that one of the last dozen changes was swapping a saltire for a union jack, or vice versa). bobrayner (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree MOS:FLAG is highly controversial it has huge community support Gnevin (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think flags can and sometimes are overused, I don't think it should always be automatic to remove them. This is a controversial decision and thus a source of edit wars if consensus isn't achieved. I don't think an appeal to the Manual of Style is necessarily a good thing in this case, but rather it should involve those participants who commonly edit these articles where this template is used to come to a consensus on the issue. As a comparison, articles on spaceflight such as the Soyuz (spacecraft) article use them and are even encouraged within that particular group of articles. I could think of other examples, but consensus certainly is needed. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully agree that before implementing this, consensus should be achieved. This is the core of this discussion. Notification of relevant wikiprojects, MOSFLAGS and Village Pump was condition by the bot owner and this is discussed here. The reference to the template:Infobox power station was on purpose, as due to earlier consensus, if hydroelectric power station has also a dam, it uses template:Infobox dam instead of template:Infobox power station as power generation information is integrated into dam infoboxes. Therefore, changes in one infobox are very relevant to other infobox. Beagel (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is plainly a win for compliance with the guideline, for accessibility and for common sense (national locations are very rarely important enough to warrant flag icons on Wikipedia, let alone in infoboxes). I wasn't aware that bots could be petitioned to do this sort of work; that's an excellent proposition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Per Chris , couldn't of put it better Gnevin (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per MoS. A dam country is rarely important enough to warrant extra attention to the field; additional weight should be in the prose anyway if applicable. Other than that, sensible consistency and removal of partial redundancy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated, I support moderate use of flag icons in infoboxes because a) they are instantly recognisable and b) they take up less room. MOS:FLAG is highly controversial and there is no consensus for the existing policy on its talk page.--Bermicourt (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you can tell the difference between Australia and New Zealand instantly even at 20px? If I see them side by side at decent size I still have to check the configuration of the stars . WP:MOSICON is a guideline not a policy and has had consensus for years Gnevin (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MOSICON only survives because the once a guideline is written it's almost impossible to reverse it if there are as many "for" as "agin". It should be removed until there is true consensus. Don't worry about the Australian flag - when they vote for a new psychodelic one that gets rid of the Union Jack, you'll be able spot it a mile away! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't see any valid reason to emphasize the "nationality" of dams. Furthermore flagicons can be misleading, distracting from the broader history of a given structure (when it transcends multiple states administering it, such as Soviet Union - Russia, etc.) or when companies from multiple countries are involved in building or operating it. Location maps are far better for indicating location. --Elekhh (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as I did for Infobox Power Station.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I changed Barrage to Barrage (dam) in 'data15' in order to fix a detour via a disambiguation page. Bouchecl (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates text size

Wikipedia has in its infinite wisdom recently changed the CSS and not necessarily to the better in my opinion. I can't say for sure what those changes all are but they have certainly changed how infoboxes and citations are displayed. Since I wrote that I have learned something. Somehow, my browser zoom level was changed (it must have been me though I don't know how I did it). So now, Infoboxes and citations look as they did before the "change".

I recently made a few minor edits to Lock and Dam No. 7. There I noticed that the |coordinates= display was difficult to read. Looking in the template I can see that the |coordinates= display uses <small></small> html markup. It seems to me that this is inappropriate given that it makes the coordinates difficult to read. These markup tags should be removed.

On a not necessarily related note, I think that default image and map size should be 300px.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the size of coordinates is to fit with standard size of the infobox. I strongly disagree that the image and map size should be increased to 300px. In most of cases this is just not justifies. I also recommend not to use the obsolete coordinates field and to use the current set of coordinates and location map related fields instead of. Beagel (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A 300px wide image gives a bit more room to text in the infobox so that fields with a long text string don't wrap as often. These days with wider monitors, the info box doesn't take up as much space as it did in the olden times of CRT monitors. Similarly, with the new wider monitors, lines of article text are longer. It is more difficult to read paragraphs of text that use most of the article window's width. We can give up a few pixels to narrow the article space and increase the space available to infobox parameters. You "strongly disagree", yet you don't actually state why you disagree—"not justified" doesn't indicate why you believe we shouldn't use a wider image.

No objection to not using the "obsolete" |coordinates= parameter. The result as displayed in the infobox is no different—the coordinate display is still difficult to read, so is still broken by the new CSS in my opinion.

As an aside, the template documentation should make it clear that |coordinates= is actually obsolete—it doesn't. That you say it is "obsolete" doesn't make it so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The skeleton template does not include the field |coordinates= anymore. This is the reason why this also not mentioned in the current documentation. If to use the skeleton template, there is no problem. Of course, it still exist in older templates and the problem is if instead of the skeleton template, the template is copied from the existing article. As for the infobox size–infobox is not the main part of the article but just a summary of the main facts. Increasing the infobox size will move focus too much to the infobox instead of the body text. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what a skeleton template is so I can't speak to any of that.

From the current template documentation §Coordinates:

Item 3: coordinates – with a {{coord}} template which cannot be used with the {{Location map}}

If, as you say, this parameter is "obsolete" (yet still works) then this documentation should be changed accordingly. Because |coordinates= still functions, Item 3 should NOT be deleted.

The default |image_size= is 220px and the default |map_width= is 235px (why are they different?). So, images and maps at 300px would be 80px and 65px wider than the current defaults. Hardly enough to wrest the focus away from the body text. Images or colored headers will do that regardless of size. Should we then not have images in infoboxes? or headers? I think not.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

|coordinates= still functions because it is used by number of older templates and removing it will just remove coordinates from the infobox of these articles. However, it is not promoted anymore. If you creates a new article and will copy a skeleton template from this template's documentation, it does not include |coordinates= anymore but instead of this it includes a set of more specific fields. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In the course of a normal conversation, when one says something like, "I don't know what X is," the other is implicitly invited to reply. In response to the invitation, the other might say something like, "Ah, well, X is ...," and so the conversation progresses with both understanding what the other is saying because both are working from common knowledge. So, let me try again.

I don't know what a skeleton template is.

When I put "skeleton template" in the Wikipedia search box up there in the top right corner of this page, I don't get any exact matches. A search in Template space is no better. Were I forced to guess, I would say the skeleton template is jargon that refers to the underlying code that makes an infobox work—the armature, if you will, that supports the template's functionality at the lowest most primitive level. Am I right?

Still, all of this is wandering way far afield from the purpose of this post. The coordinates displayed in the {{Infobox dam}} are in a font that is too small to be easily read regardless of how they got into the infobox. That needs to be fixed. Nothing that we have said here, except my original post has addressed that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton template is an empty template in the Usage section of the template's documentation page which means to be copied into articles about dams. As for text size–you said your arguments and I said my arguments. As I did not convince you and you did not convince me, lets wait what other editors have to say, particularly editors who wrote the code for this template and decided the text size. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Jargon can be problematic.

The whole purpose of my original post was to make others, and especially the template's authors, aware of the font-size issue. You and I have not really been discussing that—we've been discussing image size and the manner in which coordinate data are entered into the template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Notice. There is related archived discussion. Beagel (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the talkpage notice, Beagel. I wrote a large part of this template along with the input of beagel, nortynort, and some others, and I agree that there were quite some discussions (here and elsewhere) relating to the coords and infobox length. The only reason why the coords were shrinked was to avoid it jumping into the second line (and thus pushing the already mammoth-size infobox longer). We could always put up another field like |coord_size= or whatever (to forcefully increase its size), but IMO that's, well, odd. Maybe it's something to do with your browser size, Trappist? Because it doesn't really look that bad to me. (try resetting your browser zoom. CTRL+0 for firefox).

As for the image width, I too strongly oppose changing the default value. Hundreds to thousands of articles are already adjusted in a way that the image size snugs in perfectly. Changing that would buckle things up unnecessarily. We already can forcefully change the image size easily using the parameters, so I think there isn't really a problem there. Typed while working, so excuse me if I didn't make any sense :) Rehman 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose said changes. The coordinate text size is a little small in the infobox but bigger in the top-right. I can see them fine. If a reader has trouble, they can always click the coordinates. Image size can also be changed in the infobox as needed, no need to change the default.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So, my browser's zoom level was off which is what was making the coordinates difficult to read. I still think the coordinate text should be the same size as all of the other text in the infobox but it's obvious that I'm not having any success in swaying anyone to my point of view.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Employees

Can we add an employees parameter? This is used in company infoboxes already. 'Manhours' may be better or 'Employees peak' and 'Employees normal' may work because of maintenance increases etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the current size of this template (a completely filled template is insanely long, and so is the skeleton itself), I think this is a bad idea, since a large percentage of dam articles (over 80% maybe?) just don't have that information. But that's just my opinion... Rehman 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rehman, I rarely see employees or man hours when researching dams. I expect the number fluctuates as well which may be hard to track.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your points. We can include it in the text if we do find material on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Name of power station

Hi. Just like the reservoir-name field, I propose adding a field for the name of the power station. I have come across a handful articles in which the dam and power station have two totally different names. It would be nice to have this in the infobox itself (and can be used only when the names are different, of course). In addition to that, I also propose a field for adding the coordinates of the power station, as in many dams, the associated power station is located many kilometres away.

If no one objects this, I hope to add the field tomorrow or day after. Best, Rehman 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tracking category

I plan to deploy the following change [1] which will enable the corresponding Category:Infobox dam using deprecated parameters tracking category to identify transclusions using the now deprecated syntax. let me know if you see any problems or errors. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a great idea, but the bot will be doing the same thing et the end of its run, I believe. And at the same time, it will be also be renaming/removing most of the fields mentioned, so there wont be much left. For those that weren't renamed/removed, it will be creating a list (like how it was done some years ago at this template) of articles requiring manual action. Rehman 00:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The tracking code is a very good idea. In my experience, it's always a good idea to keep track of reverts, or missed parameters. This is also much easier than having a bot repeated check all the transclusions. I went ahead and deployed the code. We should keep it in there even after the template is updated to find cases where the bot's changes were reverted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, and we should not remove the old parameters until the tracking category is empty (or at least nearly empty). Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Essential template cleanups

Hi. Per MOS:INFOBOX, I propose completely cleaning out of the infobox, as it includes quite a high number of entries that IMO should only be in the main article, and not in the infobox template itself. Nearly every intricate dam detail is currently in the infobox, making a large part of the article itself redundant. It also includes various depreciated fields and fields with alternative names, which just clog up the template unnecessarily. In the simplest terms, I propose this change (see sample usage).

I propose removing or merging the following template fields (including already depreciated fields). Going from top to bottom:

• Purpose. Keep the field, but reduce the automated options to the most common entries. F=[[Flood control]], I=[[Irrigation]], N=[[Navigability|Navigation]], P=[[Hydroelectricity|Power]]. Do note that if any of the pre-defined codes are not used (F, I, N, P), whatever is already entered will get displayed.
• Height. Remove height_thalweg and height_foundation. Whatever the height that's mentioned in the generic height can, and should, be further explained in the article.
• Curve radius. Completely remove this field. This is valid only to a particular type of dam, and moreover, is a detail that's harder to find in most cases.
• Volume. Same as curve radius. Completely remove, and move details to main article text.
• Reservoir capacity. To display the total capacity of the reservoir. To remove active_capacity and inactive_capacity, by moving contents to text.
• Plant owner. Nearly always the same as the plant operator. If different, owner can easily be mentioned in the article. Operators are the more sought after info.
• Licence expiration. Move the contents of this field to the main text area, then remove field.
• Hydraulic head. I'm on the edge on this one, leaning more towards removal and move-to-text.
• Maximum capacity. Remove this field. The majority of articles are relating to subjects that are already after construction. Future planned capacity is not a very commonly known fact.
• Capacity factor. Remove and move-to-text.
• Net generation. Completely remove. It's almost entirely impossible to maintain this field.
• As at. Remove. No more use as "net generation" is removed.
• Bridge. An already depreciated field(s). Remove all bridge-related fields from the template.

Also, does anyone have a problem with permanently enabling the relief map feature (instead of the current option-based enabling)? Can we all agree that the relief map is always better than the simple line-drawing map?

Below are bot tasks; simple internal mergers/renames (mostly for uniformity) during the above cleanup that basically wont effect anything. The bot is to generate list of all usage of non-replaced deleted fields, for manual action. (Updated per final proposal conclusions. Rehman 10:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC))

• alt into image_alt
• caption into image_caption
• location_map_width into location_map_size
• location_map_text into location_map_caption
• official_name into name_official
• locale into location
• status=U into status=UC

• began into construction_began
• commissioned and open, into opening
• closed and decommissioned, into demolished

• type to dam_type
• crosses to dam_crosses
• length to dam_length
• height to dam_height
• height_foundation to dam_height_foundation
• height_thalweg to dam_height_thalweg
• crest_width to dam_width_crest
• base_width to dam_width_base
• crest_elev to dam_elevation_crest
• volume to dam_volume
• spillways to spillway_count

• reservoir to res_name
• reservoir_capacity to res_total_capacity
• active_capacity to res_active_capacity
• inactive_capacity to res_inactive_capacity
• reservoir_catchment to res_catchment
• reservoir_surface to res_surface
• reservoir_length to res_max_length
• reservoir_max_width to res_max_width
• reservoir_max_depth to res_max_depth
• reservoir_elevation to res_elevation

• tidal_range to res_tidal_range
• com into plant_commission
• decom into plant_decommission
• conventional, run_of_river, tide, and pumped_storage into plant_type
• turbines to plant_turbines
• installed_capacity to plant_capacity
• average_annual_gen and annual_generation, into plant_annual_gen
• url to website

I understand that some of the changes are trivial, and more or less unnecessary compared to the workload involved. But right now, the template, as well as the template code, are too big and a mess. I strongly support carrying on with the cleanup (with bot support). Do post your opinions, particularly the WP:DAM gods (User:Shannon1, User:NortyNort, and others). As always, if there are no direct objections, I will be bold and proceed with this. Best regards, Rehman 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Plant owner, Licence expiration, curve radius, Capacity factor, Net generation, As at and Bridge (which I thought was already removed). Volume is the structural volume of the dam (not the curve radius). Volume is a big data point especially for embankment dams and commonly found/sought. The different height (thalweg (riverbed) and foundation) I think are important as well. Often the multiple heights are listed by developers. Inactive and active volume was suggested by an editor awhile back and is a big stat as well that I think should be in the infobox. I also support trimming down the purpose field, it got a bit out of hand. Thanks for the effort on this!--NortyNort (Holla) 22:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. So basically (for clarity), you disagree with the removal of labels Height (thalweg), Height (foundation), Volume, Active capacity, and Inactive capacity. While I understand your point, I am still leaning towards the removal of all, except maybe Volume (depending on more input) because, in addition to obviously being able to move them to the article text, the fields I'm leaning towards removal are something more like "second-level" info. For instance, you have Height, and the more specific Height (thalweg). Or you have Capacity, and the more specific Active capacity. Per my original proposal based on MOS:INFOBOX, I believe we should keep the infobox to the basic information only (a.k.a. "first-level" info only). Rehman 01:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And I think we should keep hydraulic_head which is major specification of an HPP. I see a lot of dam specifications and the items I don't think we should remove are commonly listed and "first-level" IMO. Not every dam articles needs the information but when you have an FA like Hoover Dam, it adds to the thoroughness of the article. If removing the other fields clears up space in the template, is it a bad thing to have optional fields?--NortyNort (Holla) 01:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I get your point. I have no issues with those fields and was just trying to cut down the fields to the acceptable minimums, and cleanup the overall template insides (which right now, is a mess). But I do get your point on the value it adds to the articles. I will then proceed with the rest boldly, keeping the fields you suggested to keep. Rehman 13:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just one technical question before I do so. We currently have three "height" fields: "Height", "Height (thalweg)", and "Height (foundation)". Can we move generic height into height_thalweg? Is that the commonly intended reference when referring to just "height"? And can we do the same with the reservoir capacity, or should be have a total capacity field instead? Rehman 14:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! "Height" is intended if no specific height such as thalweg (fancy word for riverbed) or foundation is given. Most articles have height while some have just thalweg or just foundation or both. I put those different heights in there because of some small infobox edit wars over the real height of a dam. That is one reason I would like to keep all three. Yes, the "Reservoir_capacity" is total capacity; active and inactive capacity, if added together, should equal the total capacity.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Coolio. Will start working on it then. :) Best, Rehman 10:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I support which was said by NortyNort in his/her first post. I am also not sure about adding prefixes "dam" or "plant" to the fields. It is useful in the case of disambiguate fields (I think that it is justified in the case of "commissioning") but in other cases we better keep fields shorter without unneccesary prefixes. E.g. {{Infobox company}} changed some year ago company_name, company_type and company_logo fields into name, type and logo fields and I don't think we should it done vice-versa. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The cleanup (involving field renames, merges, removals) undoubtfully needs a bot sweep across a number of articles. And since this is being done, it makes sense to do a complete job at once, even if it involves trivial fixes or changes (which are a net improvement), rather that little repetitive changes over time. As for the field length, compared to the current max field length, the new version will be increased by two notches, which is negligible. The prefixes also segregates fields per subject, which is easier for identification. With regards to the company infobox example, what makes it different here is that we have four very distinct areas rather that one: the dam, the spillways, the reservoir, and the power station, in addition to the header and footer fields. I agree we could easily make all fields even shorter (one-word fields?), but that would make the template skeleton an unfavourable sight; I hope you get what I'm trying to say. On a smaller less-relevant note, I am also trying to make this and {{Infobox power station}} more uniform and seamless; keeping the field names identical wherever possible. As you have not directly rejected anything Beagel, I will assume in goodfaith that you have no direct objections, and will proceed soon. Hopefully today/tomo as we are closing in on the 7-day. Best, Rehman 13:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

please put the new version in the sandbox so it can be previewed in the Template:Infobox dam/testcases. from what I can tell, what you plan to deploy will have errors in the plant coordinates field. the current transition version does not have this problem. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The testcases page uses many fields in the old format. That's why it doesn't look right. Please see this for the final version that's the be adopted. I am aware though that there is a slight coding issue only with the coordinates (it doesn't show on my sandbox for some reason), I will look into that as soon as the template goes live. During the bot run, please don't change the template to avoid any possibility of things going haywire. Best, Rehman 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

apparently you don't understand what is wrong with

|data40         = <small>{{Coord|{{{plant_lat_d|}}}|{{{plant_lat_m|}}}|{{{plant_lat_s|}}}|{{{plant_lat_NS|}}}|{{{plant_long_d|}}}|{{{plant_long_m|}}}|{{{plant_long_s|}}}|{{{plant_long_EW|}}}|name={{{plant_name|}}}|display=inline|type:landmark}}</small>

. I can explain it to you if you still don't get what I am complaining about. Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. You know, in future, it would be quite helpful if you could stop complaining about what I don't understand, and just fix it yourself, as you claim to know how to do so. Rehman 11:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

what do you think this was about? your welcome. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep this simple and straightforward, as how such a task should be. But to answer your question, that was merely a slamdunk revert to what I did (instead of a fix to the template hydro plant coordinates function, as your diff clearly shows). On top of that, you did that just some hours after the bot owner did some preliminary runs on updating the new params across many dam articles. Going forward, I will only respond to anything that has to do with improving this template or the associated wikiproject. Rehman 15:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

to be clear, I'm not the one who reverted your changes, that was Deor who did so because the changes had serious errors. I'm the one who made a transitional backwards compatible version that would function while the bot was running. in the interest of improving this template, I request that no changes be made without (1) making the changes in the sandbox, (2) generating a sufficient set of test cases, and (3) asking for feedback on the new version to make sure there were no issues that were overlooked. and, yes, I plan to follow this guideline as well given the major problems recent changes have caused. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the dams that are under construction have a "U" in their status field. The changed field only reads "UC". Is there a way in to include "U" or do all the "U"s need to be changed to "UC"s?--NortyNort (Holla) 13:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's also included in the bot task, and will be changed in the same instance when the others are updated. Rehman 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. What is the rationale for renaming the parameters? "dam" in |dam_length= is redundant, and changing |official_name= to |name_official= is just silly; as is |decommissioned= to |demolished= - dams can be decmomissionsed without being demolished. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. One of the main purpose of this cleanup is to attend to depreciated parameters, which should either be merged or removed. As there needs to be a bot sweep for this anyways, we have also included trivial-but-helpful changes as well. The field prefixes makes the infobox skeleton look more neater, and allows easy identification of sections (see documentation). Rehman 11:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: the reason for 'dam_length' is avoid confusion with the reservoir length. I agree that name_official and official_name should both be allowed, but I'm not that concerned about it. as for the demolished, decommissioned, and closed go, they currently all display under the label 'demolished', so either that should be changed, or they should be renamed. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Break

I have been checking out a few of the recent changes --which have flooded my poor watchlist-- and I noticed this. The Arkun Dam will not have a pumped-storage station. Hydraulic head is a significant measure of power for both conventional and pumped-storage power stations. Is this a mistake? Also, the generic "height" field was removed the Infobox. I am working on a dam article now where a height is given but riverbed or foundation is not specified... so I don't know where to put it. I thought we were keeping the "height" field? I am sorry I have not been able to pay much attention to all these changes. Life continues to be busy...--NortyNort (Holla) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@NortyNort: I put it there since the parameter was removed. I would estimate that there are at least a hundred more are/were using the hydraulic_head parameter. perhaps we should put it back in? I would be happy to undo my edits if the parameter is put back in this template. and yes, |dam_height= still exists. Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see "dam_height" is the code. Worked on Chalillo Dam which I added an infobox too. I just added "dam_height" to the documentation. I thought "hydraulic_head" was going to stay. I think we should put it back in as well. It is in a lot of articles and a major measure or specification of a hydropower plant.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@NortyNort: should it go back in under 'Reservoir' or 'Power plant'? is 'res_hydraulic_head' the most appropriate? Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say |plant_hydraulic_head= or just |hydraulic_head=, since it was in the plant section before. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it back, as it was actually removed by mistake. Rehman 02:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Plant owner

I've only just noticed the recent changes and while I don't have a problem with most, there is one parameter that gives me concern, plant_owner. Justification for its removal is "Nearly always the same as the plant operator. If different, owner can easily be mentioned in the article. Operators are the more sought after info". This is not at all true in Australia. Dams are generally owned by a government agency here while the associated energy generation, but not necessarily the water generation or other plant, is operated by a commercial organisation. The plant owner and operator are equally important so plant_owner is still very relevant and more significant than plant_operator as, while the operator may change, the owner rarely does. I'd like to see this parameter returned. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my reply below, in the #Maintained by section. Rehman 04:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Plant coordinates

What the problem with plant coordinates? I added plant coordinates to Narva Hydroelectric Station; however, coordinates are not shown in the infobox. Beagel (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Fixed. Rehman 13:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Maintained by

can we add a parameter for maintained by. this used to be |maint= at some point in time, but was removed, or forgotten. this is useful for dams which are not owned by the agency which maintains them. I have been using |owner=Maintained by ..., but it would be better to have a separate parameter (e.g., see this edit). Frietjes (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

now added. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose adding this, unless there is good consensus in doing so. As I recall, this was removed sometime back because of the fact that only a relatively small amount of articles have different owners and maint, and the template was already getting very large. Due to the size of this template, we should try an keep it to the bare minimums whenever possible. Rehman 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding though, "Maintained by" is almost always the same as "Operator" (correct me if I'm wrong). So if we are going to keep two separate fields for owner and operator (as AussieLegend suggested), I suggest having a dam_owner and dam_operator (under the dam section), with the corresponding plant_owner and plant_operator (under the power station section). This would require renaming params in about 200 articles (per the bot run query below). Rehman 04:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, if we have a dam_operator, then that could be used for the maintainer. let's add that instead. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Make sense. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I support adding this, definitely better than overloading the owner field. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I see you went ahead and added this to the lead section. As this is not in the dam-section, I went ahead and removed the "dam_" prefix. Hope the change is not too late (if the bot did the changes already)?

On a different note: Contrary to what I proposed above (to have another plant_owner). I think it's a better idea to leave that one out, as it seems like that's not really used/needed, IMO. Rehman 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple power stations

Currently this infobox allows only one power station. However, there are more sophisticated cases having a complex of several power plants (cascades) related to the same dam. Right now these articles have several infoboxes and putting dam and power station infoboxes together at the same page does not look nice. E.g. Tumut Hydroelectric Power Station and Ulla-Førre. Any idea what to do with these articles? Beagel (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You could embed the additional stations in the main box using the |embed=yes feature in {{Infobox power station}}, and wedging them into the |extra= field in {{Infobox dam}}? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For Kölnbrein Dam, which is an extreme example, I created charts and plugged the information/coordinates in. By the way, I really like the addition of power plant coordinates to the infobox. There is often a dam where the power station is miles downstream and now the coords can be listed in the info box instead of the text.--21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

John Butters Hydroelectric Power Station

There is a issue concerning usage of the infobox for the John Butters Hydroelectric Power Station. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Documentation dilemma

The plant_annual_gen (Annual generation) refers to Net generation, which is negative for most pumped storage (consumption is higher than generation due to losses). However, the documentation refers to Gross generation, which is positive. plant_type documentation links to Hydro, not pumped storage. TGCP (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Energy storage#Storage capacity

[[Energy storage#Storage capacity|Storage capacity]] should be change to [[Energy conservation|Storage capacity]]. Because there is no "Storage capacity" section in Energy storage article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Shkuru. Thanks for that. I have changed the link to Energy storage#Capacity. Feel free to let me know if you disagree. Cheers, Rehman 05:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rehman :) Shkuru Afshar (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mapframe usage

I'd like to propose the implementation of mapframe maps for dams. --katpatuka (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Katpatuka: do you still think this would be a good idea? I would likely support the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To be more precise: I'd actually appreciate to immediately see the shape of the reservoir on a map, not only the dam. ;) --katpatuka (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree that would be very nice. We would need a way for the template to link the dam with its corresponding reservoir. I will do some investigation ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this something like what you had in mind? It shows Lake Travis in blue, and there is a marker showing the location of Mansfield Dam — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Katpatuka: any comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Exactly what I was thinking of...! katpatuka (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay I will see if I can code this up when I get a chance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Alignment

Question: Infobox mapframe does not have an alignment parameter so it is always displayed centered on a page. Implement a align param for it or implement a new parameter for Infobox dam to embed the Infobox mapframe in it ? --katpatuka (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really know what you mean. Do you mean the alignment of the map inside the infobox? Why would we not want this centered? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:NID

Please consider adding a field based on Template:NID for dams located in the United States. Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'm not that keen on IDs in an infobox. It might be better to add it to Template:Authority control and then it would appear at the bottom of the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We have National Inventory of Dams ID (P9439) on Wikidata but it only has 737 uses currently, which is about 1% of the total records. It would be great if this could be increased before we consider using it on Wikipedia. Also {{NID}} only has 12 uses! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Native name

Please add native_name to match other geographic infoboxen. e.g. {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox valley}} — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)