Talk:Saville Dam

Original research regarding Bill's Brook Dam
Thank you for your recent additions to the Saville Dam article. I noticed that you've cited two sources, one being Water for Hartford which appears to be entirely valid. The other you've added is summarized as "Correspondence with Paul Hart of the Barkhamsted Historical Society, 2016". Based upon this summary, it sounds as if you're citing unpublished discussions with a historian. While this historian may be very well versed in the history of Saville Dam, Wikipedia standards prohibit using original research (WP:ORIGINAL) as source material. Only published information that can be independently verified (WP:VERIFY) may be cited as sources. If, however, the cited correspondence has actually been published, then please do reply with clarification so that the citation can be adjusted to meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY.
 * I wanted to give you some time to address this issue before I moved to delete the information discussed above as per criteria set forth in WP:ORIGINAL and WP:VERIFY. For the time being, I've added an inline cleanup tag suggesting the information may represent original research.  Please discuss/address this issue.  If you take no action, the text based upon unverifiable, original research will eventually be removed.

Regarding "Connecticut River watershed" box
Although the Saville Dam is technically within the Connecticut River watershed, the "Connecticut River watershed" infobox that you placed at the bottom of the article simply wasn't relevant enough to warrant inclusion here. If there was a way that you could set the infobox to be collapsed by default, thereby making it less obtrusive, then maybe the sparse relevance could be overlooked. But as it stands, the watershed infobox was nearly doubling the length of the article simply by listing myriad other rivers, lakes and landmarks that have little or no relation to the Saville Dam outside of being in the same vast watershed area. Suffice it to say, an encyclopedic article on the Saville Dam simply doesn't have a place for an exhaustive listing of features related not to the river on which it is found, but the massive, multi-state watershed occupied by the 400-mile river that it feeds some 17 miles east. —Jgcoleman (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point well taken about the size, though I'll disagree with you about the relevance. I'm exploring the collapsing angle, haven't quite cracked the secret of it yet despite seeing some other examples. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Figured it out. HTML is not my strong suit. :-) --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Creation of the Reservoir - from the MDC page
Quite a bit of information about the purchase & condemnation of properties in Barkhamsted and Hartland was mixed in with the MDC page. Given that this page is the redirect for the reservoir, I've moved the history of the reservoir's creation here. Ideally, the reservoir - given it's the largest in the state and provides 3/4 of MDC's water - should have its own page. CountryMama27 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)