Talk:List of lakes of Alaska

Naming and Priorites
When creating an Alaska lake article:

Please do a United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) search to ensure:


 * 1) That the "official" name is unambiguous and unique (at least within the United States), then just use the official GNIS "Lake_Name" or "Name_Lake" to name the article.
 * 2) That the "official" name is unambiguous unique within the USA State of Alaska, then name your article by the official "Lake_Name (Alaska)" or "Name_Lake (Alaska)".
 * 3) If there is more than one lake within Alaska by the same name, then name it by the borough which completely contains the lake "Lake_Name (Borough_Name)" or "Name_Lake (Borough_Name)" assuming the name is unique within the borough, if not, then use the municipality which completely contains the lake.

If a lake "uniquely" spans more than one borough or more than one municipality, i.e. there are other lakes with the same name, and all the others are completely/uniquely contained within a borough or municipality; then the "major" lake which spans across boundaries can either:
 * go by the civil subdivision containing the majority or it or its mouth/drain
 * go by a larger civil subdivision (Alaska) or (Borough_Name) provided there is a reference-link to a (disambiguation) page near the top of the article.

When creating a article for a lake with a non-unique name, please use GNIS and at least "stub out" the other similar Lake/Name articles, and add them to this list of Alaska lakes (both with as much as you reasonably know about them).

Priorities:
 * Updated the (3) largest lakes articles (still need a lot of work) and updated them on this list. Anyone have a list of deepest, "largest", longest, ... ?
 * Added the GNIS (67) named artificial reservoirs to this list.
 * Added the GNIS (58) names Anchorage lakes as a comment at the bottom of the list, merging them into this list ...
 * Next ? I was going to do either Matanuska-Susitna or Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (both are personal interests).
 * It makes sense to start with those "near" Alaska's other principal population centers: Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, ... and fan-out from there.

USGS GNIS query links and counts
I created a secondary table under Notes (Lakes and Reservoirs by Borough) with USGS GNIS query links (and hand-copied total counts). If a Lake or Reservoir crosses the boundary between two or more Boroughs, then it gets counted for each one.

Awk script
I wrote an Awk script which takes USGS GNIS Save as pipe "|" delimited file output and reformats it into the appropriate table rows.

Order
Merging the rows into the table requires "hand sorting", i.e. the table is ordered by the primary or root portion of the name, usually deferring "Lake" or "Reservoir", "Lower", "Middle", or "Upper", ... to be secondary sort "keys". I suppose my "logic" can be automated, but pulling the table (potentially with other modifications) "out of the article", merging it, and reinserting it, is a bit "messy" (i.e. would likely require producing a merge "exception" list and then human intervention to resolve).

Sorting
The WikiTables are sortable - click on the sort "widget" at the bottom of that column heading to sort, to sort by more than one column/key, first sort by the secondary ones, then by the primary one last. LeheckaG (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

missing
Two rather large lakes on the Kenai are missing from this list: Kenai Lake and Skilak Lake. I don't have much experience with these complicated tables, if someone could add those two it would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of lakes of Alaska. 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/20120915153709/http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_general.html to http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_general.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011002605/http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Data/water_index/lakes.pdf to http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Data/water_index/lakes.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) 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

formatting issues
I’ve never been good at the fancy formatting on these sorts of tables. I made this edit and it’s basically ok but the formatting came out wrong. There also seems to be an issue with the entry on Summit Lake a few spots further down. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue has been fixed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additions and editing of the list
I am almost finished for the day, editing the list and making additions. I'll work every day that I can on the list as there is not much to do while it is dark out on most days and even when it is light it is so cold. I would like to see the majority of officially named lakes included and I realize that is a massive goal. We do have close to 500 already listed with the additions today. I will finish today with the 15 some odd Twin Lakes. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I regret to say I'm not all sure I agree with your goal to list every named lake. I feel like bloating the list with 3,000+ entries will not serve the reader well and we should limit it to lakes that either have a WP article or are reasonably likely to get one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How are you going to determine which lakes are "reasonably likely" to get an article? Sounds highly subjective and even more work. If you are going to do that kind of research you might as well write them all. If the decision is only to do lakes that have an existing article then over 480+ of the 500 listed need to be deleted. Not much point in having a list then because all of those already have a category for "Lakes in Alaska". I am more interested in having lakes listed that do not have a Wikipedia article for whatever reason. Anyone with an interest in lakes of Alaska can find the list and look up additional information from other web sources because it does not have an article here. Those that have an article do not need a list. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reasonably likely" would be something you would normally add not as raw text but as a redlink, in anticipation that their should be an article on it. Most small, off-the-road-system lakes in wilderness areas are not really notable. The relevant guidance would appear to be WP:CSC, which advises that you should only try make comprehensive lists including notable and non-notable items if said list would be fairly short, which is certainly not the case here. In fact there are items listed here that have been deleted previously. Actually this very subject was discussed (briefly) a few years ago at Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska), Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of that AfD and I disagree with the conclusion but it was before my time. A curious question though: what sense does it make to have a list of lakes that already have a category where you can look up and find a list of lakes that have an article? And in regards to the red links, they are supposed to be added where an article is assumed to be created "soon". They are not intended to sit there perpetually for years until someone creates an article. Regardless, people use red links very subjectively. I may feel a subject should have an article. You may feel it shouldn't. Does that mean it should have a red link or does it mean that it should not have a red link. If you are going to bother to look up sources to see if a subject is notable you might as well write the article. Red links should be used where there may be existing articles on a subject like driving in the United States however there may not be an article on driving in Italy. Not much subjectivity there. You create the red link because you are fairly certain that an article will be written soon without having to check for notability. So there really is no need for a list if one firmly follows the rules that are not supposed to be followed firmly anyway. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we're going off subject here, the redlinks are not the main point, and I certainly wouldn't argue the point that when to create them is fairly subjective. The way this is handled at many other list articles is to only have items listed if they are blue links. It's a simple way to limit the size of lists that could get ridiculously large, such as this one. An example is List of YouTubers. Obviously, you could easily prove that millions more YouTubers exist than are on this already-long list.

I disagree with your contention that you might as well write an article as that is just as easy as doing a google search. Look at all the work you yourself put into Chilkat State Park. (nice work by the way, it seems we have several overlapping interests) In most cases it isn't even necessary to do a search anyway. A small lake in the middle of nowhere with no land access is generally not going to be notable enough to sustain an article. I've written quite a few of the entries on this list myself, yet I've not written about a number of other lakes I have visited because there simply isn't much of anything to say about them other than that they exist. I also feel like it may be time to seek further input on this as we do not seem to be anywhere near an agreement here and we've both said our piece. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

missing or incomplete items
A couple of (to my mind anyway) rather glaring missing items: Just a few that sprang to mind after a quick scan of the list. I may take a swing at the Big Lake article myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hidden Lake (Alaska) is not listed at all. (yeah, ok I wrote it just last month, but it's well known and accessible)
 * Big Lake. I was kind surprised to find we have an article on the settlement but not the lake itself. I would think it wouldn't be too hard to write one.
 * Lake Hood. We have an article on the seaplane base, but not the actual lake. While the subjects are obviously intimately connected I would again think it would be fairly easy to write an article on the actual body of water.
 * Blueberry Lake. The only one mentioned is in Anchorage, there is another lake by this name in Thompson Pass that has a State Recreation Area and one of the most outstanding campgrounds I've ever visited.
 * Hidden lake is very beautiful but too close to people for my liking. You wrote an amazing article on it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was there in October, it was practically deserted, which is just how I like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Scope of this list
Should this list include every named lake in Alaska, include only those notable enough for an article, or use some other standard? 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You can see the genesis of this RFC two sections above. Myself and another user were discussing this, but we very quickly seemed to arrive at an impasse. While I appreciate that they put a lot of work into expanding the list, it is my opinion that attempting to just list every single named lake in Alaska on a single list is not advisable. I simply do not think it would be useful to the reader for it to be that large, at around 3,200 items. The closest thing to a rule I could find is WP:CSC, which advises against this sort of list.


 * Possible solutions:
 * limit the list to only those lakes that have an article
 * List them all, but split the list into several lists, sorted geographically, either by general region or by borough, and make this list a list of those lists
 * go ahead and list over 3,000 items on one page

I'm in favor of that first one myself, but also welcome any possible alternatives I did not consider. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Open-ended have no fixed limit, aim to list at least lakes that have an article but allow more than just what has an article. It’s kind of which comes first, the chicken or the egg — the name or red link may be edited in before an article.  And there doesn’t seem a norm among Lists of lakes - Alabama is oriented to fishing, Arkansas is just a list of lists by county, Indiana has many redlinks.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am against only listing lakes that are accessible or close to the larger human population centers in Alaska. Some of the best lakes I have visited and lived near were secluded and off-road. Seeing as there isn't a rule or consensus in regards to lakes, rivers or landmarks we are afforded the opportunity to make one ourselves. Thank you for bringing this question forward. I hope we have good participation. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer but there is options that will allow for more participation. Anyone who has lived or does live in Alaska knows we have a very small but diverse population that is both spread out and concentrated in a few major centers. The ecosystem is as diverse as the population with so many opportunities to be "one" with nature at every turn. What I will reiterate is that it does not make much sense to me to have a list of lakes that has an article and is already included with a category "Lakes of Alaska" which takes the reader to a bot generated list of lakes in Alaska with an article on Wikipedia. It seems redundant to have both. If the decision is to only include lakes that have an existing article then either you have an editor generated list or you have a category and bot generated list. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I say leave the list at all lakes those with and without articles for not and take this discussion up a level to WP Lakes to format a project wide standard practice for lists of lakes. The scope issue with this list is the same issue actually with most lists of Lakes in terms of scope and how to handle so many lakes, I went through all the lake articles in the project and tagged them in the past few years. I've been overhauling the WikiProject Lakes project information and had not gotten to Lists quite yet, but this is a larger guide to handling conversation that the entire WikiProject Lakes would benefit from in terms of cleaning up and bringing consistency across the lists of lakes. My suggestion is taking this up a level to the project to discuss more broadly as well. For now this should be handled as a transition list where redirects can be pointed until a structure can be outlined for all US states. I'm thinking in terms of state level lists these should be limited in scope to either highlighting the largest X number of area, volume, and depth while providing sublists which are comprehensive by some administrative area such as borough for Alaska and use Set Index Article Lists for the same named lakes for a state. For a comprehensive list at the state level using the format like List of rivers of the United States: A and so forth is already what some have been doing. If you take a look at the List of Lakes of The United States it suffers from the same scope issue and the criteria needing to be set more broadly to help rein in the purpose of the page. So figuring out the transition strategy to get to the desired model of the evolution of list of lake pages on WikiPedia will be next. Setting what is an acceptable number of lakes per list of lakes would be a good guide to identify how best to deconstruct the pages. I'd personally find pages useful with any number of lakes since search and scrolling are not really an issue and I'd like to be able to look up any lake and find out information on that lake as it would improve linking structure between other notable topics such as rivers along the route and pairs well with Wikidata. I agree with the statements above that we need to make sure that notible is not exclusive to near population centers and other bias of "interesting". I also started exploring bot generated lists based on Wikidata, but there is some work needed there - I configured a rough demo the ideas of maintaining lake lists, but am thinking through the implications. To wrap up, I'm for leaving all there for now and taking this up a level to look at a strategy that works across most lake lists to 1. cleanup, 2. stage transition 3. set scope and sub list scope for gazetteer functionality. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One tidbit of information I think is missing from this list is depth of the lake where it can be found or added. There is a column for the municipality but most of the lakes on the list are not near a municipality, as one would understand it. It would be almost more advantageous to list what mountain peak the lake is near, in Alaska, rather than municipality (tongue-in-cheek). We have a column for elevation, surface area and the Borough/Census Area, which are relevant. A column for depth in feet and meters would be an added bonus to this. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that "municipality" is not a particularly helpful index considering that the majority of the entries are not in one. It's not a term even used much in Alaska outside of official names. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Only list lakes with an article It's questionable as to whether a lake without an article actually has any significant presence in sources and would pass WP:RS. Also, how would you differentiate between large ponds that are called lakes? Just keep it simple... ~ HAL  333  01:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all entries for any named lake (or if there's some notable non-named lake, I may have missed it.) Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. We should not be removing verifiable geographic information that doesn't otherwise qualify for an article just to cut down on the size of a list, as these are indeed listed in reference books and you'd expect to find them somewhere on the site. I don't mind how it's organised, just that we keep the information. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)