Talk:Tillegra Dam proposal

Fact box redundancy
The fact box information is redundant in terms of its information being repeated in the article, and that the entity in question is unlikely to ever exist. The article is desribing an abandoned project not a physical entity, where as the fact box gives the impression that the dam exist. The editor referring to himself as an "aussielegend" seems to be confused as to the status of the dam proposal. The present government and opposition have stated the dam will not go ahead. Even if, as the "aussielegend" individual seems to wish, the site is again considered, the likelyhood of the new proposal being exactly the same is negligible. Therefore I suggest that the fact box be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.86.37 (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated on your talk page, infoboxes (not "fact" boxes) are used to summarise articles, which is exactly what this one is doing, so it's not redundant at all. I also pointed out that scrapping of the current proposal has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the article should contain an infobox. The infobox remains because it summarises the specifications of the lake that the proposed dam would have created. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest the statement referring to "the lake that the proposed dam would have created" shows a lack of attachment to reality. Is wikipedia ment to be full of info/fact/wotever boxes informing us about the physically specifications of abandoned projects? The article is only relevant historically. The statistics are given in the article, within another dedicated section. The info box is utterly absurd, it gives an impression of physicality to the dam which isn't and probabily wont exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.86.37 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, infoboxes are supposed to summarise articles. By their very nature infoboxes duplicate content that exists within the body of the article. That's what they're supposed to do and this one is no different. The content in the infobox was sourced from HWC's well documented proposal. It gives the reader an idea of the extent of the proposed dam so I really don't see why you have an issue with it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Tillegra Dam → The Tillegra Dam Proposal — The proposal will not eventuate, therefore its status is now historical, and the subject of the proposal will not exist and therefore in itself is too irrelevant to warrant an article. name change. 220.236.86.37 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it's "too irrelevant to warrant an article" why are you suggesting it be moved instead of deleted? Tillegra Dam was proposed so "Proposed Tillegra Dam", as suggested at WP:AWNB, seems a reasonable title. "The Tillegra Dam Proposal" seems unnecessarily long and a pointless move. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose suggested title uses "The" and title case. I suggest instead Tillegra dam proposal. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose current proposal, would support move to Tillegra Dam proposal. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved to Tillegra Dam proposal based on the contents of this discussion and the previous one. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tillegra Dam → Tillegra Dam Proposal — Relisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Subject of article should be the proposal rather than the dam which is non existant. 58.105.128.205 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Comment the 2010 requested move resulted in suggestions with different capitalizations from the one suggested here. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - incorrect capitalisation and really, what's the difference between the two names, except that the current name uses the correct capitalisation. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that really an oppose? Just suggest the capitalisation change.  —  AjaxSmack   01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Tillegra Dam proposal (with correct caps) per nom. It's a little fastidious but the nominator is right; the article is about a proposal, not a dam, and the title should reflect that.  Also, aesthetically, it's nicer to have the proper name to start the title.  —  AjaxSmack   01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tillegra Dam proposal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081202041454/http://www.hunterwater.com.au/files/IWRP.pdf to http://www.hunterwater.com.au/files/IWRP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal revitalised?
I've got no references for it other than stories in the local papers, but in mid 2018 a campaign was started to revisit this proposal. Now (mid 2019) that proposal appears to be still "alive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:A0C5:689:2CA0:35BC (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)