Talk:Hoover Dam/Archive 2

Post-2017 power allocations
For planning purposes, I was looking into when the contracts will go into force under the modified power allocation regime that is to begin in 2017 (apparently in October). Per this, there seem to be some 58 successful applicants in addition to the existing ones, and so the power allocation table is going to get very long. Do we want to keep it in the article, collapse it when it gets long, move it to another page (possibly List of entities contracting for power from Hoover Dam) or something else? Or just wait until 2017?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could combine the ones with less than 1%, etc. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede image again
In looking for more info on the new power allocations that go into effect in October, I came across this report. On the 16th page (I think it is), there is an image of the dam by Christopher Irwin that is listed as CC/2.0 that shows the bypass in front of the dam, likely from a helicopter. It might be a suitable lede image if cropped and if we could get a better copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, this isn't the imagery I'm thinking of. I wish I could get back down there to take the picture I want to see for this article.  It'd be looking upstream from south of the bridge, with the bridge's arch framing the dam from above.  - Denimadept (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at it again, I don't like the angle of the bridge across the dam, which blocks some of the powerhouse. I'd love to go as well, but it's steeper hiking than I like.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hoover Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906043817/http://www.usbr.gov/tsc/eco_research/eco5.html to http://www.usbr.gov/tsc/eco_research/eco5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716043900/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1836&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1836&ResourceType=Structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613031657/http://hooverdambypass.org/faq.htm to http://www.hooverdambypass.org/faq.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

275 deaths in the last 10 years?
That's according to this article in The Guardian. Is it credible? SmartSE (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what they mean by "died at the site". I doubt if it was due to swimming, or they would take a lot more precautions against it. I would suggest no change to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Power allocations again
As a reminder, the new contracts go into force in three weeks, and we should change that section on October 1. There are a large number of entities receiving allotments, including various tribes and UNLV. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoover Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714164802/http://www.acwa.com/news/federal-relations/president-signs-hoover-dam-power-allocation-act to http://www.acwa.com/news/federal-relations/president-signs-hoover-dam-power-allocation-act

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Popular culture" section again
This section is strongly advocated against. It has been added and removed many times. If something is going to appear in this section, the reference must be mostly about the structure, not as an environmental feature of something else, which doesn't have the dam as its focus. - Denimadept (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The 'In popular culture' section is a staple of Wikipedia articles concerning famous landmarks. Most forms of media will not have their (the famous landmark in this case) settings serve as an area of much focus. That does not mean that we should disregard the appearance of famous landmarks in popular culture. The Empire State Building has a section 'in popular culture', the Golden Gate Bridge has a article Golden Gate Bridge in popular culture, and so on. A precedent is clearly set. --SamHolt6 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an FA though and the others aren't. I've removed the section pending discussion. I would have no objection to a stand-alone article that could be linked as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not like this is the first time this has happened. ,,, , , etc. Also note that I left the basic section this time, just removed all the trivia. - Denimadept (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have created an outflow article that will hopefully put this issue to rest. I would like to add an "In popular culture" section containing only a "See also, Hoover Dam in popular culture". Thoughts?


 * Well done. I would suggest having it as a see also. If you have a section on popular culture, it will encourage additions, even if it is just the link you propose.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, a link to the new article is now above the tourism section.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture
As for the current picture, I realize the significance of Ansel Adams - however, the picture just doesn't look 'encyclopedic' to me. It doesn't appear to get the subject of the article across - you can tell it's a damn [sic] but it looks small and it's black and white. I would suggest using the below picture. Yes, I KNOW the article is already a featured article but that doesn't mean changes can't be suggested. Anyway, let me know what you all think.

-- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We've been talking about this for years. See the two Archives, especially Archive 1.  The image you included isn't an improvement.  It's just in color, and not as good a composition.  Composition is critical.  The image we want hasn't shown up yet.  I went to take one for that purpose, but didn't get anything I liked.  I hope to try again and do better. - Denimadept (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoover Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030622043404/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/ to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoover Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613142851/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Hoover Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230171345/https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fat1935.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fat1935.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160806014956/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/24mo/2015/DEC15.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/24mo/2015/DEC15.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041117235355/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/parker.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/parker.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689BUjowT?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323052336/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTZtcHN?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/faq.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/faq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623012153/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/tunnels.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/tunnels.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623012106/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/coffer.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/coffer.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528192251/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/hscaler.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/hscaler.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623012044/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/artwork.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/artwork.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515221421/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/fatal.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/fatal.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112041254/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/rhinehart1.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/rhinehart1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928180218/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/chrono.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/chrono.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613151420/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/hoover.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/hoover.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314062811/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/spillways.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/essays/spillways.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528060416/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/crossingguide.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/crossingguide.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528053724/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/service/index.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/service/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Which 1947 joint resolution renamed Boulder Dam?
Might someone be able to provide a link to some documentation of the 1947 joint resolution that officially renamed Boulder Dam to Hoover Dam?

As of 2017-12-14, the article includes, "Originally known as Boulder Dam from 1933, it was officially renamed Hoover Dam by a joint resolution of Congress in 1947." Also, what documentation is there of how popular he was at different times? The Wikipedia article on him indicates he was rather unpopular during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. He was very critical of Franklin Roosevelt and refused to even talk with him when Roosevelt asked for Hoover's advice in 1938. However, after Roosevelt died, Hoover accepted invitations from President Truman to perform certain tasks. And the 1947 joint resolution changing the name apparently came when Republicans controlled both houses of congress, though the Democrat Truman was President. DavidMCEddy (talk)


 * It's some time since I worked on the article, but we went by the sources cited, as I recall. The resolution is Public Law 80-46, 61 Stat. 56 (April 30, 1947). If you search in, or page through this to page 56, you'll be able to read the resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added it -- in two formats:  the standard "USBill" format and the more general "citation" format:  The latter will make it easy for a pedestrian like me to find it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

112 deaths
"There were 112 deaths associated with the construction of the dam." A later passage indicates that 42 died of either pneumonia or carbon monoxide poisoning, and were not counted in the official total. So is the official total 70 deaths, and the unofficial 112, or is the official total 112 and the unofficial 154? 173.66.61.245 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter. I do see by web search there are variant figures for this. We might want to hedge.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearer, sharper photos of memorial, elevator bas-relief and view from memorial bridge
I've noticed that the photo of the memorial could be a bit sharper so I've contributed my own. I've also contributed two other photos to commons. One showing the bas-relief that sits ontop of Arizona side elevator that could potentially replace a b/w photo of the Nevada side elevator bas-relief and a photo from a very center of the new memorial bridge walkway which is also sharper and higher resolution of the current one.

These are the photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoover_dam_memorial.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hover_Dam_view_from_memorial_bridge.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoover_dam_arizona_elevator_relief.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksomber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Calisphere

 * 24.7.104.84 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting but I don't know that the image is worth putting in. Thanks for the link..--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 24.7.104.84 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting but I don't know that the image is worth putting in. Thanks for the link..--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)