Talk:Kakhovka Reservoir

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Водосховище.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is past tense appropriate?

Given no official source has said the dam to be a total loss, can we truly justify the use of past tense verbiage here? This seems to be jumping the gun before we really have concrete information on the situation. DeveloperRowan (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We can't yet use the past tense: WP:CRYSTAL. Boud (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC) It's rather a question of whether the reservoir - the "artificial lake" of water - still exists. Let's not jump ahead of the sources. Boud (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Past tense for the Dam is now appropriate. Satellite photos now confirm that the moving water in the reservior (aside from trapped pools which are useless and will dry up) is now ony in the original Dnipro riverbed and the bridge is now clearly completely destroyed. 2603:8080:D508:BA1C:C880:F453:72BE:72A5 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Why is using past tense appropriate. The reservoir while currently draining still exists. That needs to be fixed. 71.185.196.2 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Need to complete full info about control the Kakhovka reservoir

Add: Until the destruction of the dam, it was completely controlled by the Russian armed forces since ocupation. RedFox (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

change the surface elevation from 44m to 14m, which would bring this into line with the Ukrainian version of this page, and would also more closely match existing data from the USDA's satellite monitoring of the reservoir. Hidalgo de Arizona (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be 16 metres based on 1992 to present, data from US Agricultural Department. I will add a photo of the graph when I work out how to do it. Jon3414 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - that does seem to be closer to the actual historical data - though I can't actually find a design height anywhere, only a headwater height of 14m for the generators on the dam. Hidalgo de Arizona (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the height in the infobox to 16m, and added a source in the text (Guardian article that used the US Dept of Agricultural data). I don't think a picture of the graph is needed - it's a snapshot of data, and we're just interested in the average figure. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A road across the dam can be seen to to be badly damaged from 2 June

BBC: "It is unclear when exactly the dam was first damaged or how it happened, but satellite images suggest its condition had deteriorated over a number of days.
A road across the dam can be seen to to be badly damaged from 2 June, but there did not seem to be a change to the flow of the water until 6 June when the breach of the wall and collapse of nearby buildings can be clearly seen." — should be mentioned in the articles? ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 07:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

References