Talk:List of lakes of Wisconsin

criteria?
With over 15,000 lakes in the state, how do we decide which lakes to include?Kdammers (talk)
 * Since the majority of those lakes would probably be considered notable (and thus would be kept if they had articles), not sure if any can be excluded. As a practical matter, this page mostly includes lakes with articles. If someone ever feels the need to expand this to include the rest of them, it can be split by region or county; I don't think there's a need for that yet though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

List of lakes in a county
There are pages for List of lakes in Vilas County, Wisconsin and a List of lakes in Oneida County, Wisconsin. I would like to see a List of lakes in Marinette County Wisconsin. Is it appropriate to create such a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spkal (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED due to consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

List of lakes in Wisconsin → List of largest lakes in Wisconsin – There are 15,000 lakes in Wisconsin. It makes no sense to have a WP list that long. How about just limiting it to just the largest lakes? (See:, for example). -- Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? There aren't 15,000 lakes in the article now.  And if there get to be too many, they can be spun out into articles like the List of lakes in Vilas County, Wisconsin.  This seems to be a solution looking for a problem.  —  AjaxSmack   04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As it is right now, this is just a silly, random list of non-notable lakes in Wisconsin. Just trying to make it into something rational and coherent. -- Mesconsing (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that there are levels of notability, and that merely being notable enough to warrant a WikiPedia article will eventually yield a large number, and it is not too early to have that discussion. However, I don't think it is at that point yet.  Also size should not be the only criteria for notability.  I would add things like a lake of any size which is eponymous with another geographic feature (like a town name), any lake that is the source of a river, etc.  This still will yield (eventually) a large number of articles, and so the "list" article will then have to be organized.  So the point is well taken, but IMHO for the time being I would leave it alone and see how big the list gets.  Right now (BTW) some very large lakes in the state are not listed at all -- I just added Lake Nokomis myself the other day (and have a Lake Nokomis Draft Article), which I am pretty sure is in the top 100 of size.  Laurentian Shield (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the same can be argued for all limited listing lists on Wikipedia. At other instances, the decision has been made to not use the word "notable" as part of list titles, as the list entries must meet some level of notability to be listed, and the change in title does not help in determining it, it just makes it a longer title. A simple criterion used on some of these other lists is that the listees must have articles or sections in other articles. We have Importance-inline to tag iffy entries. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 70.24.247.127. The present title seems appropriate.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.