Talk:List of dam removals in Connecticut
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes column
editHi @Elizabeth Linden Rahway, thanks for your interest the dam removal lists!
I noticed your edits here and on List of dam removals in New Jersey that split the Notes column into three different columns. Some background: I wrote a script that turns entries from the American Rivers dam removal database into state-specific wiki tables. Then I manually format the output to fix errors and add wikilinks.
The Notes column is indeed a combination of the original use, ownership, and NID fields in the American Rivers database. But I intentionally decided not to make these separate columns for a few reasons, namely that the data is often incomplete and may be difficult or impossible to complete, and that I don't think it's very important info. Lots of dams never had NID numbers, and the numbers seem to be removed from the NID web viewer anyway after a dam is demolished.
I see the purpose of the Notes column as a place to add more detail or interesting info about each removal, often available in external sources. Check out some of the other lists, like List of dam removals in Maine, where I've filled out some of the entries. For this reason I think it's a loss to do away with the Notes column. If you don't like having the somewhat repetitive American Rivers info in the Notes then I'd prefer just deleting it. QuincyMorgan (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was on a roll and got halfway through the available lists before noticing your note. The edits were in response to the extensive repetition of "Built for" and "Owned by" (clearly more of an issue in some states than in others) and the use of Template:National Inventory of Dams without using
|short=yes
to reduce repeated text. If you're unhappy with the edits, you may revert them without hurting my feelings. Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for your response! I agree the repetition isn't great, I'll see what I can do about that. I didn't know about the `short=yes` NID parameter and will use that in the future. Sorry for the work. QuincyMorgan (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)