Talk:Devils Lake (North Dakota)

Requested move

Devil's Lake (North Dakota) → Devils Lake — "Devils Lake" without apostrophe is proper name. — MikeGruz (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support The name "Devils Lake" is the proper name of this lake, as well as the nearby town and the basin which the lake is a part of. The United States Geological Survey page for the basin and lake confirm this. In addition, citations in the above article from peer-reviewed journal articles confirm that "Devils Lake" is indeed the common naming convention for the lake. As such, the page should be redirected from Devil's Lake (North Dakota) to Devils Lake (North Dakota). MikeGruz (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Wrong name

Unresolved

• It is the wrong name in any case; it should be Devil's Lake.

  The missing apostrophe in the name of the associated city is the result of a U.S. Post Office push early in the 20th century to eliminate apostrophes from all post office names. The same consideration does not apply to the name of the lake.

  I don't have time to fix it now, but will later if nobody beats me to it. Gene Nygaard 15:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please note that this is incorrect. The apostrophe has been deprecated by the United States Geological Survey (the office with responsibility for geographic place names) since 1890. (If it were the post office, we couldn't use street names with apostrophes, either.) The apostrophe deprecation applies to both the municipality and the lake, as easily verified on this USGS topographical map [1]. --Dhartung | Talk 17:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• OK, DreamGuy, now you're being totally irrational. I was willing to sidestep the controversy by moving the North Dakota lake article to Devil's Lake, but you've come right back and forced us to deal with it again. What's more, you have now messed things up so completely we will need an admin to move the pages back. I hope you are proud of yourself and that 1x.5 mile "lake" of yours. --Alexwcovington (talk) 17:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There's absolutely nothing irrational with my changes. Your attitude is completely out of line here. "Devil's Lake" is the actual name of the lake and state park in Wisconsin. With the apostrophe in it, it is clearly far and ahead the leader in notability, as you can see with a Google search. No contest. Spelled incorrectly without the apostrophe, it still beats the city in Google notability by a fair amount. Your attempts to put the North Dakota one in the primary article space is simply inexcusible, and if you had any sense of trying to work together for consensus you would have accepted the disambig page as the main article space. The fact that you didn't and insisted upon continuously trying to make it the main article, with and without the apostrophe, shows that you have no intention at all of trying to work together. And I don't get this sneering at a lake and putting it in apostrophes like it doesn't count somehow. That's just plain irrational. That lake is a prime tourist spot and far more well known than your lake or city. So you have a larger body of water, so what? Washington DC is nowhere near the size of Washington state, but when people talk about "Washington" they are almost always referring to the more notable/important/famous one and not the one that happens to fill up more space. The same is true here. DreamGuy 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't a lake so remote it doesn't affect anyone. Just because North Dakota doesn't provide as many links to pages on the body of water does not diminish its importance. There are THREE cities (not one, and that's just along the lake). It hosts three state parks, not just one like the Wisconsin lake. There's a a federal game preserve, a Native American reservation. It has its own USGS/EPA defined drainage basin. Steamboat traffic dating back almost 200 years. Thousands of people depend on this lake for irrigation and drinking water, are threatened by its droughts and floods, fighting over outlets and potential downstream contamination. This lake is in the middle of struggles between the North Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba, US and Canadian governments. And it's NOT trivial. True, the article stands with much to be improved, but there is a lot of information to improve it with.

  I would not hold out so much hope for the lake in Wisconsin. The Devil's Lake in Wisconsin is miniscule in comparison. Just one mile by half a mile according to the Wisconsin DNR map on the park site. It is completely encompassed by the single state park. And it's outside of Baraboo, more notable for the Circus World Museum.

  And fishing? People rave about the fishing on Devil's Lake in North Dakota as well. I've seen TV shows on location at the lake in winter and summer. Maybe the Wisconsin lake is a loosely kept secret on the Internet, but there have been volumes made on the North Dakota lake.

  So, in the face of all this evidence suggesting that the North Dakota indeed has more significance than its Google hits reveal, why are you promoting a direct disambig page over the established article? A link to the disambig page, or if the number is small, direct links to other similar items, at the top of a main article is SOP in situations like this. Insisting that the Wisconsin lake article merits making a disambig page the main page for the subject is like saying because Jacksonville, North Carolina exists there should be a disambig at Jacksonville. Or worse, you suggest that the North Carolina city is more significant because of its proximity to Camp Lejeune, when the Florida city hosts a naval base and an air station, in addition to being larger and more populous.

  Finally, the point you seem to be missing in all this is that the article on the Wisconsin lake doesn't even exist. We are having this discussion on what used to be, and still is for all practical purposes, the main page for the subject "Devil's Lake". Either you are too busy arguing with me or it doesn't actually hold your interest enough to create. So basically, you are insisting that the Devil's Lake in North Dakota is on a par with nothing at all, and claiming you're acting in the interests of NPOV. Where is the rational thought process behind that? We can link to the Devil's Lake in Wisconsin right at the top of the main article. No muss, no fuss. --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Devil's Lake (North Dakota) → Devils Lake (North Dakota) - Proper name does not include apostrophe. US Geological Survey and US Postal Service references reflect this fact. — MikeGruz (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really freshwater?

I listened to a program on NPR and they described Devil's Lake (Or Devils Lake, if you prefer) as being saline. In fact the pricipal opposition to draining the lake's water is based on the concern's that the lake's salt content would be harmful towards river water. Piercetp 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And the 1:250k USGS Topo Map reads "Devils Lake" (then a line break) "Salt". 82.36.26.70 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, with no outlet, it will become a salt lake in time. Evidently, it hasn't become very salty yet, as the article lists freshwater fish. But there are degrees of salinity, of course. One imagines that a mention of the lake's average or historical salinity would be a good idea. Can anybody help out? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Devils Lake is noted as having higher concentrations of salinity than many lakes, owing to its being a closed-basin lake. However, it is still considered a freshwater lake (I would post a reference, but at the moment do not have any with me). You're correct, though—the salinity of the lake should be discussed on the page. I'll get on this in the next few days. MikeGruz (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added some information on fluctuations in the lake's salinity this morning. Hopefully that does it! MikeGruz (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorheic?

I noticed that this article is in a category of articles regarding endorheic lakes. Is it now not an endorheic considering it now has at least one outlet? Or are the rules not incredibly strict and the article is considered to be of interest to those who are looking up endorheic lakes? Minshullj 04:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the outlet has never been allowed to run. Also most endorheic basins are only "endorheic until X" - the current lake level as observed this morning actually has it being non-endorheic because it is high enough to flow into the Sheyenne Contributions/12.52.96.200 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The man-made outlet has run but only a few days. You are mistaken. The lake has never come close to a level of 1458 which is the base level that the lake will naturally run from stump lake to the Sheyenne River.--Benjaminlately (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: They have doubled the capacity of the outlet by installing two more pumps, but I am unsure how much they are being used. (Benjaminlately (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Last section paragraph of "Outlet Controversy"

I think that the "data" from the study should be removed from the last paragraph "Data from the first year of sampling indicates that fish in Devils Lake are healthier than fish in other waterbodies in the region. Highlighting the lack of knowledge about biological communities outside of Devils Lake, two alien parasite species were found in Lake Winnipeg, the Asian tapeworm, Bothriocephalus acheilognathi and the blood dwelling trematode, Sanguincola occidentalis." because it is very specific without any supporting references at all. In fact, I think that most of the information in the paragraph could have easily been made up, and on such a controversial issue at least one source should be required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.172.171 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Global warming in the American Scientist, resource

Runaway Devils Lake; In the wake of climate change, a North Dakota lake swells without regard for people or property and with no easy fix in sight. 99.109.125.114 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Devils Lake (North Dakota). 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/20110521212934/http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB-1060/DLPlan.pdf to http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB-1060/DLPlan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330223221/http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetContentPhoto/PB-218/640/480 to http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetContentPhoto/PB-218/640/480
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113020157/http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetCategoryRecord/Devils%20Lake%20Flooding to http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetCategoryRecord/Devils%20Lake%20Flooding

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)