Talk:List of lakes by area

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive01:Archive01

Lake Nasser[edit]

why lake nasser not in the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nasser it is largest man made lake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.194 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to lake?[edit]

How is "List of world's largest lakes" an article in and of itself? Should it not be merged with the article on 'Lakes' in general? Hulces 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an excerpt taken from Wikipedia editing policies: "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Hulces 06:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Lake article would be too long if this is merged there. It is a good idea to keep list articles separate, so the main articles are more compact. Also consider how the River article deals with the issue by having a similar separate list, List of rivers by length. No need for a merge. P.S. I created this article. feydey 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This list is similar to a large number of other lists on Wikipedia and doesn't need a separate justification for its continued existence. Rmhermen 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tag per above discussion. feydey 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Continent[edit]

Should we add a list of largest lakes of each continent, or does that belong elsewhere? If it belongs here, can someone who knows how to use these tables add this?

Hmmm, I ran quickly a check on the data You gave and found [1] a lake not in our list, Lake Maracaibo in South America. I'm wondering why it isn't in our list? Should it be etc. When this is cleared up, then the by continent list should be added to the article. feydey 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added this list to the lake article, which states:

Note: Lake Maracaibo can be considered as the largest lake in South America. It however lies at sea level with a relatively wide opening to sea, so it is better described as a bay.

--Lethargy 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Maracaibo may belong in this list, but we'll need to check out some more sources first. One more thing: should we add this list to this article, keep it in the lake article, or both? --Lethargy 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both, and also the top10 largest lakes could be added to the lake article, like in the river article? feydey 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name?[edit]

This article doesn't seem to follow the de facto naming policy for geographical lists; for instance List of countries by area, rather than List of world's largest coutries. (Admittedly that article actually has a more complex name, but the principle is there.) Especially in the case of lakes, 'biggest' is ambiguous (does it refer to area, length, depth, volume?). I propose a move to List of lakes by area. Hairy Dude 00:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "de facto naming policy for geographical lists" given? feydey 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hairy Dude -- this article's name should be normalized to List of lakes by area. Citynoise 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan-Huron?[edit]

Lake Michigan-Huron is a single hydrologic feature (see also the lake article). Should we include it in this list as one lake or two? I'm inclined to change it to one lake, since this list is primarily of hydrological, rather than hydronymical, interest. Thoughts? Citynoise 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of being bold, I've made the change for now.Citynoise 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Michigan and Huron could be listed but not ranked, for comparison, the way some non-country entities are listed for comparison in list of countries by population. Chuck 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lake Michigan-Huron" is not a recognized body of water and should not be on this list. Just because there's a term for what are customarily referred to as two separate lakes doesn't make them one. If we're going to go that route we might as well put "The Great Lakes" on this list as well. To someone who's grown up around those lakes it sounds about as ridiculous as referring to "The Pacifitlantindiarctic Ocean"
The lakes should be listed separately, they are not a single lake. This is the first time I have heard it being called Lake Michigan-Huron and I was born in Ontario, and we learn that they are called Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Gsingh 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Lake Michigan-Huron" site (apologies for not linking it directly) appears to cite no sources and doesn't appear on Google outside of one infoplease.com article and a number of Wikipedia/WP-sourced articles. I recommend that we not create bodies of water that aren't recognized as such. Almondwine (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of why I put the list into a more acceptable state. I know people using this list as an explanation for why Wikipedia can't be trusted. Also I removed the sea's, they are not lakes and do not belong.Zath42 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can't be trusted? Can you trust...
...the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glscf/hydrology.html
"Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake hydraulically because of their connection through the deep Straits of Mackinac."
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/reckhow/KHR%20PDF%20publications/Sellinger2007.pdf
"Lakes Michigan and Huron are connected by the Straits of Mackinac and behave hydraulically as one lake."
http://www.mdnautical.com/noaa_catalogs/greatlakes.pdf
"Lakes Michigan and Huron are connected by the deep Straits of Mackinac and are considered to be one lake hydraulically with lake levels rising and falling together."
...the United States Army Corps of Engineers?:
http://www.glc.org/stclair/documents/Kompoltowicz_PP.pdf
"Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake, as they rise and fall together due to their union at the Straits of Mackinac."
...the United States Environmental Protection Agency?:
http://www.epa.gov/solec/solec_2008/2/7_Ontarionotes.pdf
"...Lake Michigan-Huron, all one lake hydrologically because the Straits of Mackinac are so wide."
...the Great Lakes Commission?:
http://www.glc.org/living/pdf/introduction.pdf
"Lakes Michigan and Huron are connected by the deep Straits of Mackinac and are considered to be one lake hydraulically with lake levels rising and falling together."
...the Indiana Department of Natural Resources?:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3661.htm
"...because Lake Michigan/Huron is hydraulically considered to be one body of water, connected by the Straits of Mackinac at the north end of the two lakes."
...the International Upper Great Lakes Study?:
http://pub.iugls.org/en/Other_Publications/SummaryDraftReportStClair.pdf
"...Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered a single lake because they have the same surface elevation due to their shared connection to the broad and deep Straits of Mackinac. In addition, Lake Erie was included in the Study, given its importance in determining the water levels in Lake Michigan-Huron."
...the International Association for Great Lakes Research?:
http://www.iaglr.org/jglr/db/view_contents.php?pub_id=714&mode=view&table=yes&topic_id=27&mode=topic_issue&volume=11&issue=3
"...changes on the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron (hydraulically one lake) and on the upper St. Clair River profile was determined with dynamic flow models. The ultimate effect of the above dredging was a permanent lowering of the Lake Michigan-Huron levels 0.27 m (0.89 ft), which represents a tremendous loss of freshwater resource [32 km3 (7.7 mi3)]."
Phizzy 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If WP contradicts Truth, it of course cannot be trusted. The same, of course, goes for reality. kwami (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is considered to be hydraulically considered to be a single lake does NOT mean that it is considered to be a single lake. In general it is overwhelmingly considered to be two lakes, and a preponderance of sources indicate that. Start by looking at ANY map. In fact ZERO given sources say that the speaking body considers it to be a single lake (i.e. without the "hydraulically" qualifier). Even the one which appears to do so (the Army Corp of Engineers) was taken out of context; the Corp refers to them a Michigan and Huron except when they are providing hydraulic / level information and in the latter they are referred to together simply because that are at the same level and don't need two separate listings. This list is is going to look silly until this is corrected. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them as one lake is simply pedantic and is an excellent example of Wikipedia's tendency towards hyper-literal eggheadism. Yes, it is used by Wikipedia's critics as an example of why the site can't be trusted. Armandtanzarian (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but it goes beyond pedantic. It's just plain wrong, based on the commonly accepted names, meaning of "lake", and descriptions of the great lakes. There's not even sourcing for it. The closes thing is a statement that they hydrologically behave as a single lake. Interpreting that into "single lake" is like saying that the earth has only one ocean I'm going to try a few tweaks to edge towards a fix. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on commonly accepted names, the Aral Sea is not a lake either. But it's not "wrong" to include it in this list (apart from it currently being too small). — kwami (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeral lakes such as Lake Torrens should be in a separate list[edit]

This is what the Lake Torrens article says: "Lake Torrens is usually a dry salt flat. It has only been filled with water once in the past 150 years.". In other words, most of the time, it's not a lake. If it is included then other salt flats and playas which occasionally flood, such as Etosha, Makgadikgadi Pan, etc should be included. I suggest the existing table be titled "Permanent lakes", and a second table for "Ephemeral Lakes" (ie those that dry up) should be put in for Torrens, etc. Secondly, criteria should be established on how to rank seasonally highly variable lakes - rank by minimum, average (if known)? Rexparry sydney 05:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. feydey 06:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Saline lakes are denoted with an asterisk, perhaps it would better to add some other marker for non-permanent bodies. Lake Eyre (near Torrens, and quite comparable) is potentially an inland sea with enough rainfall, and has been a permanent body of water as recently as 1000 years ago. Especially with the changing climate, it's fair to say that no lake has completely static characteristics.
Many saline lakes are relatively stable in size. But we don't include even some variable freshwater lakes, such as Poyang, that flood to well over our qualifying area. Therefore I have removed fluctuating lakes that regularly or usually fall below our minimum, including Torrens, Eyre, Tonlé Sap, and Donting. A separate table would be a good idea. kwami (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Donting and Poyang are flood plains. If we're going to include them, we should also include the Niger Inland Delta, the Sudd, and the flood plains of the Amazon. kwami (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offer on addition[edit]

It is necessary to add the following lakes: Lake Taymyr, Qinghai Lake, Khanka Lake. Yuriy75 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The largest lake in China[edit]

It is Lake of Poyang, not Dongting, which is on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.240.230 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Toba[edit]

Is there a reason Lake Toba isn't on the list? 1,130 km3 would be 17--68.9.117.174 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason - it is far too small. The smallest on the list is 4,190 km². Phizzy (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lake Taymyr[edit]

As Yuriy75 has mentioned long time ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Taymyr should be on the list. The above article gives its area as 6,990 km². —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.46.22 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aral Sea[edit]

The Aral Sea was down to 17,000km2 by 2004, and had shrunk ~ another 40% by 2007. This area is now divided between three lakes, so it's likely that none of them meet our minimum area. However, I haven't been able to locate any exact figures. The SE basin might belong on the list, but we need a reference before including it. kwami (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


On the north of the ex - Aral Sea, the Small (or North) Aral Sea has gained stability. It boasts an area of over 3.000 km2 for the last two decades. I am well aware of the shrinkage etc of the Aral, but there, on the north, the news look good. After the construction of the new Kokaral dam (17 km length) and that of a 13 km dike, the water stays there, and the area of the new lake doesn't change significantly. On the contrary, it has increased a bit, compared to the years before 2005. According to a paper by Xuewen Yang et al (2020), last time the area of Small Aral Sea was less than 3.000 km2 was in 2005, the year the new dam was completed. I give a few figures: − 2006 → 3.175 km2 − 2010 → 3.264 km2 − 2014 → 3.289 km2 − 2018 → 3.142 km2

So I believe one should add the Small Aral Sea in the list of the biggest lakes by area.

This is NOT the case for the South (or "Large") Aral Sea, which is actually (mostly) the west part of the ex - Aral Sea, the east part appearing and disappearing every year. This water volume changes dramatically year by year, and actually is consisted by two or more volumes, that both had an area of 5.179 km2 in 2018. So (a) you don't really have a lake when its area changes dramatically every year and (b) it is not clear if any of the volumes in the south is bigger than 3.000 km2. So I don't believe South Aral should be added to the list.

Nikos Al (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Nikos Almpanopoulos [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ Xuewen Yang et al, Changes in area and water volume of the Aral Sea in the arid Central Asia over the period of 1960-2018 and their causes, Catena, 191 (2000)104566--~~~~

Forgot a lake?[edit]

Looks like they're missing a lake! LAKE OKEECHOBEE in Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.207.39 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's too small. This is a list of lakes greater than 4000km² - Ookkeecchhoobbee is only 1900km² Bazonka (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That pesky Caspian Sea[edit]

There has been some disagreement on whether how the Caspian Sea should appear in the various lake lists, so I thought it might be good to try to get some consensus on how to approach the issue. I started a discussion here and would welcome contributions. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saimaa, the 4th largest lake in Europe..[edit]

Saimaa has a surface area of roughly 4,400 km2. - G3, 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.254.21 (talk)

No, that's the Suur-Saimaa or Greater Saimaa in english. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort order[edit]

There seems to be some problem with sorting by Maximum depth. Khanka (10.6 m) orders between Tanganyika (1470 m) and Vostok (900–1000 m). The problem is probably related to the fact that 10.6 is the only fractional value in the column. I guess changing the value to the range 10-11 m would avoid this problem, but 10.6 m seems to be just the exact value, so this would not be appropriate. Sharkb (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of forcing the ordering. One is used on Moons of Jupiter, if you want to try it out. Meanwhile I'm reverting your "corrections" to the South Aral Sea, which are completely off. kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hint. I managed to resolve the sorting issues in a couple ot attempts. As for the area of South Aral Sea, the article says it is 5000 SQ MILES, not km2. I have verified the source. Please revert the size to 13000, unless you can find another source, in which case we should change the value in the lake article too. Sharkb (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The south sea was 13,000 km2 in 2007. It has since split in two, and the larger, eastern basin has essentially disappeared. Check out the photos from this year: the eastern basin is a wet spot draining into the western. The western basin is less than half that size, and 5000 km2 is probably about right. At least, that's what it's expected to stabilize at. kwami (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for the South Aral Sea's claimed 5,000 km2? Its article says it's only 3,500 km2.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all the press about the shrinking Aral Sea, I've found it very difficult to get data on its surface area. I've written to people working on it, but haven't had an answer. kwami (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some possible missing items[edit]

Undefined terms[edit]

Referring to the Caspian Sea, the article states: "Geologically, it is a small ocean." However, it doesn't state a definition of what an "ocean" is (as opposed to a sea or lake, etc). Since the Caspian Sea always comes up in the discussion of "lakes," it would be good to include at the beginning a comment about the qualifications of being a lake and why certain bodies do not qualify.

Similarly, in regards to Michigan-Huron, what does "single body of water" mean? What is the qualification? Is it about having a sufficiently large connection between them (e.g., instead of a river, and if so, how large/wide does it need to be)? Is it about being at the same elevation? Is there a requirement for consistency/circulation (water chemistry, species of fish, etc., see Southern Ocean article--just because two bodies of water are in contact with each other doesn't mean they should be considered a single body).

It seems reasonable that if information that goes against 'normal' or traditional thought should be justified and explained within the article. I don't see a benefit of stating such things but leave the readers on their own to figure out what they mean. 99.185.9.0 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could direct the reader to the articles, where these things are explained, rather than repeating ourselves. That would make changes and maintenance easier. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight expansion of intro[edit]

I found the statement "Geologically, the Caspian Sea and Lake Maracaibo are oceans" to be somewhat confusing. I think we should treat the two differently as Maracaibo is still attached to the ocean and is thus *today* not truly a lake whereas the Caspian Sea *was* connected to the world ocean 11 million years ago. Although the Caspian Sea may be better modelled as an ocean for study, water movement etc due to its vast size, most references refer to it as a lake (when under discussion), and I've added a number of these (NASA, Britannica, the UN and so forth). I've never seen a publication say it's not a lake, and lake and sea are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, I tried to clarify this a bit by adding citations. Macgroover (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geologically an ocean?[edit]

The most complete citation regarding the formation of the Caspian Sea and whether it's a lake or something else is

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/127855.pdf

The paper published in American Society of Limnology and Oceanography gives a detailed explanation of how the Caspian Sea is essentially 3 lakes of which the northern two were not oceanic, and it concludes:

"Conclusion: A lake, not a sea

The Caspian is truly unique among aquatic ecosystems, not only by its volume, but first and foremost by its longitudinal zones of salinity, depth, and climate. These three zones combine independently to produce three basins that are more different from each other than are many individual lakes. The dimictic north behaves like a temperate shallow lake. The central basin is still largely dimictic. The south, but for a delicate salinity-driven mechanism of reoxygenation, would rapidly revert to a meromictic basin, comparable to the Black Sea. Here, however, meromixis only set in at the start of the Holocene, when the then Pontic Lake became united with the Mediterranean Sea and acquired a number of typical marine traits, including many truly marine biota. But the biota of the Caspian basins are all euryhaline, and typical marine groups are lacking. Furthermore, intralacus- trine speciation within that euryhaline gene pool produced a level of endemism comparable to that of other ancient lakes (e.g. Lake Baikal), suggesting similar mechanisms of spe- ciation.

I conclude that, except for its sheer size, there are no arguments (except political ones) to call the Caspian a sea. Not only has it never been connected to the world ocean, but even when united with the Black Sea, that was when the Pontic basin still contained a true lake itself."

Obviously, this is one published viewpoint and there may be others, but it certainly means we simply say the Caspian is geologically an ocean. (obviously the author would include ocean as he says 'Not only has it never been connected to the world ocean'). Macgroover (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with noting that only the southern basin is oceanic. Of course, we consider the North and Baltic Seas to be oceanic even though they are shallow water overlaying the continent of Europe. The central and northern basins of the Caspian are similar, so I find their argument disingenuous. The Black Sea was a small ocean even before the Bosporus, which is little more than a natural canal, so that's a spurious argument too. Also, the Caspian was of course once connected to the World Sea: it's a remnant of the Tethys! So they're simply factually wrong. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument goes against WP:VERIFY . Whether you think it's factually wrong is irrelevant. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is source/verifiability. This is very clear:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
For example, since the author is stating that most of the Caspian Sea does not indeed come from the Tethys but rather in the main a much larger area of water 'bumped' into the smaller area from the Tethys after it had separated from the Black Sea then in that sense the author is right. i.e. he is stating that the remnant of the Tethy's got swallowed by the the Caspian that was already there. But it doesn't matter anyway - it verifiable and it's published in a respectable source. Macgroover (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate VERIFY, since we can 'verify' it with other sources. But as I said, I'm fine with it the way it is. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Criteria[edit]

Since it is now confirmed that there are lakes on titan, should this page be inclusive of only lakes on earth or all lakes known to man.XavierGreen (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it sort of implicitly means lakes of water on earth. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I doubt we know their sizes well enough to include them. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan and Huron are two lakes[edit]

Michigan and Huron are two lakes and this should reflect that. One editor has (at 2-3 articles) promoting the idea that they are not two lakes and are instead one lake "Lake Michigan-Huron". Even at the article designed to promote this idea,([Lake Michigan–Huron]) the 2 on-line source used to promote this idea don't, and actually refute it. One is Army corp of engineers info which names them as separate lakes and only combines them when presenting level data (because they are the same level). The other says that they should have been considered to be a single lake but aren't Even if those sources supported that theory (which they don't) they would be beyond-immensely outnumbered by other sources. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement you have made about that article that I have checked has been false. Anyway, get consensus rather than edit warring. Read WP:BOLD for an idea of how that works. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are violating policy by your removals of tagging for citations. Please see your talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were no citation tags. I only reverted your BOLD change. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the cited material and put back in the uncited material which directly conflicted with it. And you removed the tags on the uncited material that were there prior to its removal. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove any tags.
Perhaps we could do both: list Michigan–Huron and the two lakes individually. Let the reader decide which they prefer. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(added later) I'm a pushover / wet noodle when someone puts an olive branch and a compromise out. Maybe others should decide. :-) North8000 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that means you find it an acceptable compromise? — kwami (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources disagree. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you have any sources that disagree with that. The two that were traceable were shown to be misused and actually say that the names are Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and thus refute you. The third has such an immense amount of information missing that there is no way to check it, including to see what it actually says overall. North8000 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Canadian Geographical Society says, "Contrary to popular belief, the largest lake in the world is not Lake Superior but mighty Lake Michigan–Huron". Minority usage, yes, but it's perfectly clear. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in each of others claims like that investigation at the source showed that the source was misused and overall said the opposite. Now that we have some of the info on that previously-mystery magazine source, we can try to check it out, though it may be tough being a 8 year old magazine. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "mystery"? All you had to do was check the citations: that's all I did to verify it. And the other sources say what we claim they say—you're injecting your opinions into their interpretation, which is OR. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one organization making that claim? That's called "undue weight". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not only one source. That's North8000's OR. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To shorten my post, the article claimed that three sources said the name is "Michigan Huron". On the two checkable ones it was found that they were misused and said the opposite. The other was obscured by two layers. Due my tagging, one layer (lack of specifics) has been removed. Now we can work at the other layer, which is that it is a magazine article from 8 years ago. I suspect that if we can can get at it (without making a life out of it) we will see that the situation will be the same as with the other 2. And I'll bet there are are 10,000,000 sources that support that the actual NAMES are Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the difference between your claim for the name and your claim for existence. Please provide a source which says they are a single body of water which does not use the names we do. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone's info, there have been discussions regarding this at wp:ani and the main debate is getting played out more at the Lake Michigan-Huron article rather than here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list should represent mainstream thought, only. There should not be any minor viewpoints. The dichotomy about the Caspian Sea is well-known and widely discussed but the notion that two of the Great Lakes are really one is so very minor that we can (and should) ignore it. The only relevance we should give the notion is at the articles about the two individual lakes and at the Great Lakes article. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is a listing and a ranking. It should follow the accepted names of the lakes and the lakes associated to those accepted names. The fact that they behave hydraulically as a single lake with respect to level or that some say that they should be considered one lake can be discussed elsewhere. Kwamikagami, why don't you just mellow out on this? North8000 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't agree that we should reflect both views? There is the scientific view, what the body actually is, and the popular view, what it's been historically called. A reader coming here might be interested in either. We are not limited by space, so we should provide both. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(added later) I disagree with pretty much everything that you said, including the implied premises. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, with the admins asleep at the switch, he's figuring to win his little edit war and escape unscathed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, I'm almost convinced that a very short article about the hydrology of the double lake might be appropriate to stand on its own (though it could also be handled as a section within Great Lakes) but there is no freekin way that this article should ever have Lake M-H listed. It is not considered one huge lake by area. Area is not hydrology, it's geography. In terms of geography they are two lakes. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Geographic flatly states that it's the largest lake in the world. That's certainly worth mentioning. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ranking article inherently can't include the same body of water multiple times.North8000 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. Happens all the time, and you were fine with it once. And then there are always footnotes. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was never fine with it. I think you are deriving that from my comment when you proposed it which said that I'm a pushover for compromises/olive branches and so decided to let others decide.(?) North8000 (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Geographic? No, just David Lees, a freelance magazine writer, published by Canadian Geographic. The piece is about boating hazards from low water level, not about a scholarly study. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way around this problem may be to find appropriate sources for lists of lakes by area. Such sources are required anyway by the notability criteria for stand-alone lists. If there are lists that include Lake M-H, then it should be included with an explanatory note, along with the separate lakes. If not, then adding it is not justified. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overall list now has three sources, none of which mention Lake M-H. If anyone wants to add Lake M-H, the burden of evidence lies with them. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the notability criteria are relevant here, actually. Most list articles are by implication only lists of notable whatevers, even if the title is "List of whatevers", but this article purports to be a list of all lakes over a certain area. So the only questions, as far as I can see, are "Is Lake Michigan-Huron a lake?" and "If it is, are Lakes Michigan and Huron lakes?"Armouredduck (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Published lists of largest lakes[edit]

  • Largest lakes of the former USSR, Water Quality Assessment of the Former Soviet Union(1998) ISBN 0419239200
  • The world's largest lakes, Encyclopedia Of Inland Waters (2009) ISBN 0120884623
  • Great lakes of the world by lake type, Physical Geography: Great Systems and Global Environments (2012) ISBN 0521764289
  • North America: Physical features, The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge (2011) ISBN 0312643020
  • http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/largestlakes.htm "Largest Lakes in the World" About.com

None of these list Lake Michigan–Huron. Many of them put the Aral Sea in the rankings. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sleuthing! I have added them to the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List articles should follow the conventions of published lists, so RockMagnetist is correct on how to handle this issue. (perhaps a "see also" is fine, even if its not on the lists just so it shows the editors are aware of it, but that's a rather different discussion) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan-Huron again[edit]

The edit warring and arguments over Lake Michigan-Huron eventually resulted in many new eyes on that page, many new, good sources, and a general page overhaul. Although it could still be improved in various ways I think it is pretty good and well sourced. A while ago there was some warring over whether it should be included in this list, right? I don't think it should because it is not widely mentioned and would probably just lead to further edit warring, or at least the risk of reader confusion. But it does seem worthy of mention as a footnote. To that end I've added some info and a link in the most unobtrusive way I could think of. I thought of putting the info in the "notes" field of Lake Superior, but even that seemed overly obtrusive. So I made a "note" in the notes field, with the info way down at the bottom of the page. I also added a number of references—perhaps too many; just through I'd put in the clearest ones. If it's too much definitely trim it down. Pfly (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been strongly against putting the M-H combination in this list, but 'way down at the bottom in notes could do the trick. I'm still firmly against any sort of mention that is visible in the table part of the list. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good way to handle it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. DanHobley (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it down a bit, added the cited area, and put it in the notes section with all the other notes. (That's what that column is for, after all!) It's not obtrusive there, but neither is it hidden. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have four editors endorsing the way Pfly had it (now 5 including me), so at this point the consensus is for a note at the bottom. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the article is currently organized, though we can put the notes at the bottom if people like. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My endorsement was not meant to be an exclusive endorsement. Actually, kwami's version makes sense and avoids having a whole Notes section just for this one point. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added kwami's adding of the size of Michigan-Huron, but left the info as a "note in the notes field". I don't care much whether it is done this way or that way, I just don't want to see more fighting. Pfly (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-linked to the ranking, where it's relevant as a footnote. (Orphaned notes independent of the text don't make much sense.) — kwami (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should be more consistent about how we deal with lakes that aren't really lakes. At the moment we have two lagoons and a reservoir mentioned before any of the genuine lakes (with rankings that are probably wrong since the demotion of Michigan-Huron), the Caspian Sea included in the ranking but in its own section, ephemeral/variable lakes in their own section but not listed in the rankings, and Michigan-Huron hidden away in the notes section, which means that readers have to look in four different places if they want information on all of them. I'd like to see three classes of thing - genuine lakes, listed in the table and given a ranking, slightly dodgy lakes, listed in the table and given a ranking but with something in the notes column to explain why it might not be considered to be a real lake, and pseudo-lakes, listed in the table, not given a ranking, and with something in the notes table to explain why they're not really lakes at all. I'm basing this on List of countries by GDP (nominal), which seems to work quite well. Note that the lists on that page include things like the European Union, which nobody is suggesting is a country, so we really shouldn't get too worried about including something like Michigan-Huron as a pseudo-lake here, especially as we have a notes column to explain why it's not really a lake. Of course, the concept of "pseudo-lakes" does bring back the relevance of notability that I was dissing earlier (that is, we should include all real lakes that are above the threshold, but only notable pseudo-lakes)Armouredduck (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single official definition of lake or even area of a lake (each varies) so I think that we should not take any rankings here too seriously. Probably the best definition of a lake is that society (e.g. mapmakers sources that refer to it) generally considers it to be a lake. IMO it's just a roughly-in-order list with those various caveats noted. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we specifically exclude reservoirs, there shouldn't be any. But I agree that something can be listed more than once according to different conceptions of it. And the ranking should probably be deleted, since once you get to the point where readers can't count easily, the number becomes largely meaningless anyway. We've removed the ranking column from the list of largest languages for just that reason. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for any double listings. De-emphasizing the numerical ranking is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for lake areas[edit]

I think the derivation of the lake areas in the list should be cited somewhere within that section (e.g. at bottom of the table), and it ought to be made clear which sources have been used. I would suggest that potentially the 5 sources given in the 1st sentence of the article, be moved to within the list section as these presumably form the basis of the figures, although it would be useful to understand which source figure has been used. I had a quick look using the fact monster source and its top 10 lakes are in the same order as the article, and the areas are exactly the same (or very similar) with the exception of the Caspian Sea. Noting that 3 of the 5 cites are non-web, and depending on the similarity between the figures, would it be best to move 1 or 2 of the book cites to further reading instead? Eldumpo (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you are proposing. I think that I'm the one who started putting cites by the individual data (but not rankings). When there is a question this is the most solid verification. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to clarify the exact source that has been used for each of the area figures. It needn't involve citing each row separately; cite(s) at the bottom of the table should suffice. However, first we need to understand any differences in the sources, and decide which are best. Does anyone have any of the 3 books that are cited? Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to above, I think the list should be based on a particular (reliable) source, in order that it can be clear where the data is from. I don't think the two existing on-line links at the start of the page are particularly good sources, so would propose to use [2] , except it does only list the 20 largest. Any further views? Eldumpo (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the article/sourcing. I think it would be better though if the 3 refs at the end of the first sentence are moved to be cites at the bottom of the main list section. I've placed an online source cite there (for now) but this only covers the Top 20 and does not deal with volume/depth. Does anyone have any of the 3 books in the first sentence. Do they all fully support the information in the main table? If not, the cite should only be for the book(s) that do. Eldumpo (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garabogazköl?[edit]

Caspian Sea's entry has this note: *Not including Garabogazköl Aylagy.
The picture has it, though. And, if it is not included in Caspian Sea's area, then it should be included as a separate entry. It would place at #16 if its article is right. 82.141.74.167 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the area to the Caspian, as we do for all other bodies of water. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making Lake Volume More Understandable[edit]

Lake volume is inherently difficult to understand given the vastness of both the numbers and the units. Could you really picture a cubic kilometer? Could you really picture 78.2 thousand of them? To give readers a better understanding of these volumes, I wish to propose a novel system of units to complement the existing volumes in km^3 and cubic miles: the Amazon-Flow Second. This unit uses the mean discharge rate of the world's largest river, the Amazon, to create a base unit for comparison of very large flow rates. The unit is a product of flow rate and time and such equates to a volume. To better illustrate differences between orders of magnitude, one can change the time unit to a more appreciably different time unit.

The [discharge rate of the Amazon is 209,000 km^3 s^-1]. As such a discharge rate of .000209 km^3 is 1 Amazon Second. One Amazon Year is:

.000209 km^3 s^-1 * 60 s * 60 * 24 * 365.25 = 6.60 * 10 ^ 15 litres

For example, see the different figures below to get an idea of the differences in the flow rate of these different rivers.

  • Caspian Sea: 11.86 Amazon Years
  • Lake Superior: 1.83 Amazon Years
  • Lake Malawi: 465 Amazon Days
  • Lake Titicaca: 49.5 Amazon Days
  • Lake Mweru: 50.5 Amazon Hours

I hope this unit provides a clearer way to understand the vast differences in volume listed on this page. Would the community approve of this addition to the page?


I noted that "Lake Michigan-Huron" was re-entered[edit]

I noted that "Lake Michigan-Huron" was re-entered. It was first re-entered into the "List of Lakes by Volume" it was not mentioned in the edit summary, but it was in a September 2015 edit. Just recently it was re-entered in this article with the stated reason being to make this article consistent with this one. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it shouldn't be ranked on the same list as Lakes Huron and Michigan separately. Cobblet (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a lake. But I don't have the energy to get into a tussle again over this so I'm just noting it on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to enforce an existing consensus without something new being contributed to the discussion, so I will revert the addition. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Missing Lake![edit]

This article is missing a huge lake, Lake Onega, Russia, which is 9,700 km^2 in area. It even says, on the Lake Onega wikipedia article: "It is the second largest lake in Europe, and the 18th largest lake by area in the world."

Also, P.S: This would be a much more helpful article if the list extended beyond 37 lakes and included smaller lakes, perhaps going until the lakes were smaller than 2,000 km^2. Another improvement would be to include reservoirs + man-made lakes, lagoons, and endorheic lakes, while specifying or labelling them as such, like it does with saltwater lakes. (They are lakes in name, after all.) Marwick42 15:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Lake Onega problem and I removed Lagoa dos Patos, because it is not a lake, but a lagoon. Marwick42 16:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List Extension[edit]

I believe this list should be extended beyond the 4000 km² limit, so that it would be much more useful. I have myself compiled a list of the largest lakes under 4000 km² in area, and it extends to 2000 km². The wikipedia article List of rivers by length, is much more beneficial in that respect, including the top 181 longest rivers. Here is a list of the next lakes that should be in the list, with a limit at 3000 km²:

--Marwick42 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pretty sure that there are only about 10 in the 3,000-4,000 range? If so, sounds like a good idea to me. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have referenced lakes from the wiki article “List of Lakes”, which covers lakes on all continents. Marwick42 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the North Aral Sea. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Extension[edit]

I have done more research, and I'm able to add 15 more lakes to the list, which would bring the limit down to 2000 km². The order of the lakes is as follows:

--Marwick42 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on that. Gotta stop somewhere!  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most islands of any lake, with around 14,632 in total.[edit]

Lake of the Woods is listed as having the most islands, "with around 14,632 in total." This can't be the case, as Lake Huron contains the Thirty_Thousand_Islands. How many islands are in this archipelago is not exactly known, as the number changes with the water level in the lake and also depends on what counts as an island, but there are certainly at least 30,000. An expansive count could be much higher. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangweulu?[edit]

This list uses the area of the whole Bangweulu wetland, while the actual lake is a fifth of that in area. At the very least this should be clarified? Harsimaja (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the title is "Lakes" so I'd say that only the lake portion should count. North8000 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to the bottom. I don't know if it actually qualifies, since it's "about" the 3000km2 cutoff for this list. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Salt Lake missing from list[edit]

Great Salt Lake is not seasonal! While levels do fluctuate, so do many of the other lakes that did make the list. The dictionary definition of a seasonal lake is a lake that is DRY for part of the year. Great Salt Lake seldom drops below 4,000 km2 in area and its water levels vary by less than 100 cm over an average year. By comparison, Lake Tana anywhere from 200 to 250 cm in an average year. Lake Khanka is much more “seasonal” than Great Salt Lake. According to its Wiki page it “is highly variable” and ranges anywhere from 5,010 km2 to as small as 3,940km2 and seasonal water fluctuations average 200cm. Lake Urmia is included on this list with an area of 6,000km2, but that was its historical high level which it hasn’t achieved in decades. According to the ESA it is currently 1/10th that area and shouldn’t even be on the list if you applied the same criteria you used to exclude the Great Salt Lake. Qinghai Lake has fluctuated by almost 400 km2 over the last 20 years due to water level fluctuations up to .5 meters just from rainstorms. Again, if you applied the criteria used to determine Great Salt Lake was seasonal, Qinghai would also have to be removed from this list. Van Lake has fluctuated by as much as 300 cm over the last 25 years causing its surface area to fluctuate. Again, if we are not using the dictionary definition of a “seasonal” lake, but making that determination based on how much a lake’s levels fluctuate, what is the standard. Is it the 100cm of Great Salt Lake? Poyang Lake varies greatly in area and level between wet and dry seasons. (according to its Wiki page) In 2012, it was only 200km2 and unlike Great Salt Lake, Poyang Lake now comes close to drying up on an almost seasonal basis. Shouldn’t shrinking in size from 3,500 km2 to sometimes as small as 200 km2 on a seasonal basis qualify Poyang Lake as a “seasonal” lake. great Salt Lake’s seasonal fluctuation isn’t this drastic. Just for reference for this discussion (according to its Wiki page) Great Salt Lake is approx. 4,400 km2 and is the largest salt water lake in the Western Hemisphere. It’s also the eighth largest terminal lake in the world.

Note by North8000: The above post was by 71.10.72.191 North8000 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is that the "seasonal lake" exclusion is (vaguely speaking) intended to exclude lakes that would not meet the size criteria when they are at their lower levels. I would suggest that this would be a good guide to use for this article. This is just my quick initial comment; the poster didn't discuss what the "lower level" area of Great Salt Lake is and I'm just proposing a criteria rather than fully sorting this out. 01:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like Great Salt Lake even at it's low point would meet the 2,000km2 criteria and some IMO it would be good to include it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urmia[edit]

Urmia's shrunk so much that, like Lake Chad, it no longer meets the cut-off. Removed to the end where we mention formerly large lakes. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Italyoz484: Our cut-off is 3,000 km2, not 2,000. And you're claiming that Urmia is 6,000. Unless you have a ref to back that up, Urmia doesn't belong. (And if you do have such a ref, please update the Urmia article as well.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit-warring with you, I tagged the article for verification. Urmia was 5,200 km2 last century. Per our sources, it's not that big any more. If you have sources to back up your edit, please provide them. Otherwise your claims fail verification and will be reverted.

Per the sources at Lake Urmia,

At its greatest extent, it was [...] 2000 mi2. [...] By late 2017, the lake had shrunk to 10% of its former size [...] This dry spell was broken in 2019 and the lake is now filling up once again.

But that's filling up from ca. 200 mi2, or approx. 500 km2, 1/6 of our cut-off. That is, Urmia would have had to sextupled in size since 2019 for it to make the list. That's dubious, and I don't see any sources that it's happened. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the USGS (Landsat 8 images), Urmia was sharply up in early 2019, but down again in late 2021. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Urmia Lake Research Plan,[3] headline "Lake Urmia’s surface increased by over 1500 km²" (April 11, 2021),

Lake Urmia’s surface area has reached up to 2,917 square kilometers, indicating 1,582 square kilometers increase in comparison to 2013 when the Lake Urmia Restoration Program began.

So that's just under our limit, and it may have decreased since. (Conflicting reports.) If you have more recent data that supports returning Urmia, please provide. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Dymaxion map?[edit]

IMO he main reason for the existence of this type of map (non-distorted areas sizes) is of no value here where the objects of interest are shown as mere points. It's also an abstract hard to read map. IMO we should delete or replace it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Jackdlwilson (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Geologic definition?[edit]

The whole newish section has lakes where inclusion and ranking is by "geologic definition". This is an unsourced implication that there is a single "geologic definition". If there is some widely accepted and "geologic definition" we should include exactly what that is. Otherwise IMO we should not have that alternate section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That objection can be handled by removing the word "a". — kwami (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you did I think solves it. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a lake (Lake Rukwa)[edit]

On the Wikipedia page for this lake, it says it’s around 5,760 square kilometers (2,220 sq mi) in size Lake Rukwa Viktorvvv (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lakes_by_area&oldid=1217011557"