This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Summersville Lake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Summersville Lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
It seems to be redundant to have both this Summersville Dam article and the Summersville Lake article. I think it would be best to consolidate this information as a new section Dam section on the lake page.Brian Powell (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of both articles, I would not object to the move as proposed, as long as no information was lost, the photo of the dam was included in the article, and there is no prejudice against recreating an expanded article on the dam at some point in the future. y'am'can (wtf?) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds OK to me. I'm just thinking that the dam itself doesn't have enough information on its own, at least at present, to really merit its own article. It was also somewhat confusing why this lake had a separate page for its dam while none of the other lakes in West Virginia did.
