Talk:Hoover Dam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hoover Dam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unsorted old text

The lake holds:

holds 28,537,000 acre-feet of water (approximately 35,200,000 megalitres).

Will replace in article as soon as I work out the zeroes in megalitres.

mega = 10^6. Hence 35,200,000 megalitres is 35,200,000,000,000 litres or

35,200 gigalitres or 35.2 teralitres. -- SJK

Just done the convesion again from scratch. I get 35,199,875,834 cubic metres. ... which is right, as there's a factor of 1000 between litres and m^3. Now I'm off to extend the Magnitude page chain to get to this point! -- Tarquin

Yuck! This is an American Dam with English descended units!

If I had a CRC handy I would convert back to acre feet but alas I shall have to leave your alien units intact. 8) mirwin 02:05 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

For this amount of water, the litre is an inappropriate unit. Quoting the CGPM, "the cubic decimetre and the litre are unequal and differ by about 28 parts in 10^6"- so you would have to adjust your conversion factor accordingly. Be careful!

Cheers.

--129.234.4.10 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Acre feet? acre feet? I'd never heard of them before today, and according to http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictA.html they are only used to measure dams. Not very useful to compare with the volumes of other things. -- Tarquin

Acre feet, as a measure of volume, is still used in the United States as a large measure of water. I wouldn't dismiss its usage in encyclopedia articles used in the United States, and certainly Wikipedia qualifies as a U. S. read encyclopedia. It would be very fair to use both acre feet and the liter usage side by side. Thanks! 209.221.222.113 14:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)avnative

I think this article needs to be revised with more of the technology involved with the dam, including the towers. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough on this topic to do that. -- Jevin 22:35, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

The hoover might be the talkest concrete dam in western hemisphere, but not dam in gneral.

Lake Mead regulation height

Does anyone know the regulation height? Do you know if the volume you are refering to is the volume of regulation height or the complete volume of the lake? There is a huge different in the energy produced at a full reservoir and a empty.

Looking at the formula:

$P=\eta \cdot \rho \cdot g\cdot Q\cdot h$

Where:
P = Effect [MW]
n = Coeffisient of effiency [0-1.0]
p = The wight of water [kg/dm3]
Q = Waterflow [m3/s]
h = height

One can fairly easy see that a difference in the height will not give as much energy.

October 26th date for the first generator was found here http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/chrono.html

LordJumper 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

National park

The article says "... Lake Mead National Recreation Area is the 5th busiest U.S. national park."

However, this Lake Mead NPS page and this NPS listing shows that it is not a U.S. national park, but a National Recreation Area, managed by the National Park Service. Confusing, but true. I will fix in a few days, unless someone has better evidence

Wendell 03:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Construction cost

I was wondering if the $165 million mentioned in the article was how much it cost at the time, or is it an inflated value. Akamad 04:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

From [1]:

cost ONLY $49,000,000 to build Hoover Dam... $165,000,000 to complete the Boulder Canyon Project  which includes the Imperial Dam, Hoover Dam and the American Canal...

So that looks to be an incorrect figure, though it looks to be the cost at that time.

[2] lists the cost at $165 million like the article though.

The 165 million for the whole project is written in the BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ACT, [PUBL IC-NO. 642-70TH CONGRESS), H. R. 5773 at [3].

Theirfore I would say that $165 million dollars was the cost then for the whole project. I will change the article.--michael180 14:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say how many mega watts it provides.

Jon from DK

Highwayman

Moikka,

the song "Highwayman" seems to refer to Hoover dam construction in the third verse. Guess that's why they take so much care to point out that there aren't any bodies buried in the concrete... Should we add this to "popular culture" section?

Cheers

Internetexploder 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanadlism

One of the sub-titles in the article has been changed to "Power Poop." I do not know what it was or how to change it back, just letting you guys know.

it has been fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eatbetter (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

History

Theres some information in History of Las Vegas that may be of interest to editors of this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, adding a comment regarding "The Naming Controversy" section: One paragraph begins with what is supposed to read, "In 1932, [President Herbert C.] Hoover lost his bid for reelection to Franklin D. Roosevelt." What displays for the year, mystifyingly, is "3000" but an attempt to edit that shows that the underlying text is "1932." Someone with a knowledge of Wiki technology should look at that paragraph and make whatever correction is needed.

Compact

colorado is not listed in the states which negotiated the river compact. i assume this is an oversight and a factual error, but have not verified this.

You're correct -- thanks, I've fixed it. Luckily, Colorado River Compact got it right. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost City and Environment

Shouldn't something be said about the Lost City and other archaeological and environmental issues that the presence of Hoover Dam has caused? I realize that taming the Colorado is generally a good thing, but surely there have been environmental drawbacks to it that should be discussed in the article. Jon Thompson 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles with a Controversy section, and it might be welcome here. However, adverse environmental impacts by dams in general are dealt with quite well in the article on dams and does not need to be rehashed here, except placing them in the context of Hoover Dam (from construction to filling the reservoir). As for the lost city, it's St. Thomas, Nevada. That article looks like a stub, so if it is expanded and linked from (and to) here it will compliment this article nicely. BTW, Lake Mead's water level is so low most of St. Thomas is now dry! Notary137 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deaths during construction

I might be missing something but in the statistics section it says:

Deaths attributed to construction: 96

and later in the same section says:

Fatalaties during construction: 107

Are these not the same thing? And if they are, what's with the contrasting numbers? Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Hoover Dam Deaths from the United States Bureau of Reclamation website. 96 is the official death total, but it only takes account of workplace accidents, falls, etc. that can be directly attributed to construction of the dam. What is not included are deaths from "heat, pneumonia, heart trouble, etc.". The 107 number is not anything that is official and may be from an unrealiable source (I'll check on that). It can be agreed upon that more than 96 people died during construction at Hoover Dam, but how many more will likely remain lost to history. Notary137 04:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought of something. How about a sub-section under Construction regarding worker deaths? Might take some good editing to keep NPOV, and if we can find some reliable sources it'll work. Looking for a thumbs up and I'll head to the library. Notary137 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

there is also the whole "pneumonia" thing that happened

maybe they died at home and not on the job

so it could be Fatalaties(job and home) and Deaths(on site)

this is all a guessEatbetter 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There still is a problem with the # of deaths attributed to construction. I the text it says "There were 114 deaths associated with the construction of the dam.[8]" Later on in the Statistics area it says "Deaths attributed to construction: 104[13][14]" I am not sure which is correct. Jons63 12:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Angry deleting

I'm mad because of this big article in the hoover dam page that was deleted by somebody, it was a good article and for no reason someone deleted it. It was about modles of the hoover dam and the popularity world wide. Stop deleting my stuff, I'm warning you, I will delete your stuff then! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simpsonic1111 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

I checked the assertion that hardhats were first used at the Hoover Dam. I did not find any evidence to support this. Hardhats were first used by miners more than ten years earlier, and probably occasionally by shipyard workers starting around the same time. Two sources describe the Golden Gate Bridge (construction began 1933) as the first major construction project where hardhats were mandatory. See hard hat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianlucas (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Uh, WHY was the dam built?

This article does not explain the reasons why the dam project was originally conceived. What problems did it solve? I know it's not just water apportionment, but that's how this article reads right now. Any unintended consequences? Environmental impact? Steve carlson 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Pretty much the same reasons any dam is built. Doesn't the general article on dams cover that pretty well? No reason to repeat it here, I think. T-bonham (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seemed like a good idea at the time: flood control, power generation. Environmental impact? You bet! There's canyons now filled with water which didn't used to be. You can find images of these canyons out on the web. - Denimadept (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why it was built as well. Yes there are common reasons to build a dam, such as hydroelectric generation, water/flood control, etc. But are there any specific reasons to build this dam? It just says that a commission started in 1922 to build it. Being an enormous dam, there had to be reasons for that over a smaller one. Did they really need to generate THAT much electricity back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.31.24 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The movie shown on the tour says it was pretty much for flood control for downstream farmland, especially after the salton sea flooding. The power generation was a definite afterthought and was only fully installed in the 60s. --Nobody314159 (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Construction cost

Article says:

Construction cost: $49 million ($676 million adjusted for inflation)

Inflation to what year? Either a year needs to be established or it needs to be updated to today's dollar value. Cburnett 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Math Error?

I dont know if this is a typo or if I just cant do math but in the artical it says "During excavations for the foundation, approximately 1,500,000 yd³ (1,150,000 m³) of material was removed, including material that was the result of canyon wall stripping operations."

Now when I try to convert that to miles I get 852 cubic miles. Here is what I do when I convert it. $1,500,000*3/5280=852.273$

71.50.67.215 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

m³ is cubic meters not cubic miles (for the non-US crowd) The conversion for yd³ to m³ is: 1,500,000 yd³ * 0.764554858 m³/yd³ = 1,146,832 m³ This is where the 1,150,000 m³ comes from. Your calculation for cubic miles is incorrect also. It should be: 1,500,000 yd³ * 9 ft³/yd³ / 147,197,952,000 ft³/mi³ = 0.0009 mi³ Jons63 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I'd like to see someone write something about the controversies regarding (mainly) water rights and the dam. I know, I'm being lazy by not writing it myself, but it's just a suggestion! Thanks! Evets70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.40.157 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentaries

There's an excellent television documentary on the Hoover Dam construction in the BBC series Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. Another doco exists in the PBS series American Experience. I thought it would be useful to mention them in the article, but I couldn't see an appropriate place to do so. As they may be slightly dramatised, perhaps a "Popular Culture" section is in order? -xlynx 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

this page has been vandalised again! "Contractor Den Z. Xjkkd established a colony of great white, tiger, bull, and mako sharks in lake mead" humorous but apocryphal-I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

How about how the all spark from transformers movie is located in the dam wall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be other references too, like the one movie with Salma Hayek and Matthew Perry. This dam is pretty much sown into our popular culture as one of the great iconic American engineering achievements. 161.185.1.100 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a result it's mentioned many places. I don't think we need to mention any of them. It's trivia. - Denimadept (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How would a section on the pop culture refernces be any different to any other structure, such as the twin towers (WTC)? That has it's own article for the pop culture appearances and references, never mind a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floorhugger (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The dam also has a nice chunk of Life After People.Joe407 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

After the beginning

There's an enormous amount of detail about planning and preparation, leading up to the beginning of concrete pouring, but nothing about the conclusion of construction. It's not even mentioned in the body of the article, just an offhand mention in the intro that it was completed in 1935, two years ahead of schedule. How did they finish so early? What did they do with the extra time they had left? What were the immediate effects of building the dam? Feels like something is missing. -- Goueznou, 65.119.203.193 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do the research and add what you're talking about. - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Link Mess

The link to National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form is a disaster and is causing a spurious "}|" at the start of the page. It needs the attention of whoever made this mess in the first place.Trojancowboy (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Hoover Dam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pop culture / trivia section

I've finally managed to remove this section, folding the only fairly relevant bit into the article at an appropriate location. Another editor has an issue with this. I'm looking for other opinions, please. - Denimadept (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant bits u have merged in to the article from the trivia section Subash.chandran007 (talk)

I moved the song to the "concrete" section. I don't feel the Transformers reference were any more relevant than any of a number of other bits which have been in the trivia section of this article from time to time. See the above section on "Pop culture". - Denimadept (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up on the incorporation and removal of extraneous material. There is definitely no need for a 'pop culture' (aka: trivia) section. DP76764 (Talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to the BBC series page, but not a pop culture section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody314159 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A link in the "see also" section works. - Denimadept (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The main part of the trivia section seems to be a list of movies that it appears in. This could be a separate list page. I agree that it does nothing for the article otherwise. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Images and gallery

Would it be appropriate to put some of the miscellaneous images into a gallery? - Denimadept (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Megawatts or Gigawatts

The recent change indicates that two generators THAT POWER THE PLANT'S OPERATIONS [my emphasis] produce 2.4 GIGAWATTS [again, my emphasis]. This is clearly illogical, given that (1) the total output of the entire system, as indicated in the same sentence, is 2080 megawatts (i.e., 2.08 gigawatts) (2) the total output includes the capacity of the BIG generators (15 of them, I think). The 2 generators that power the plant's operations produce a tiny fraction of the total. I suspect the original figure (2.4 megawatts) is correct; in any case 2.4 gigawatts is impossible. Larry (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the reference I found supports that. 2.4 megawatts wouldn't have been worth building the dam. - Denimadept (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, compare Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. I've worked in this field. It's quite reasonable to produce power on these levels. You have a strange concept of "logic". - Denimadept (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understood him- He meant that the generators used to power the dam's electricity are only 2.4 MW. I don't think he's arguing that the dam itself couldn't produce 2.08 GW, just that it doesn't use that power itself, but sends it out. You claim to work in the field, but are comparing a nuclear power plant with a hydroelectric dam? Apples and oranges? It wouldn't make sense for 2/15 of the generators to produce the entire plant's electricity... what are the other 13 doing? Once again, he isn't saying that you can't produce that much power.. just that only a fraction of it is used to power the station (his emphasis should have made this clear). What would be the point of making a powerplant that used 90+% of it's generated power? 167.7.17.3 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I said I've worked in the field, not that I work there. I'm no electrical engineer. I suspect you're right. - Denimadept (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Spillways

I am not sure we should include this line in the spillway section:

^[1] The spillway gates were used in 1999 to hold water behind the dam, due to heavy precipitation in the Lake Mead watershed that increased water levels.^[2]

I don't think it is significant and believe that the gates have been used often in the past. Can anyone verify?--NortyNort (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

75th Anniversary Featured Article Push

Fellow Hoover Dam editors, another editor had the idea to make Hoover Dam a featured article for the 75th anniversary on September 30th, 2010. I have been making tweaks here and there but will get into the article more. The article is in good shape now and doesn't need a major overhaul. So, if you want to help, additional insight/editing would be helpful. If not, this is just a notice.--NortyNort (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to lend a hand but all my time filled up since we spoke.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will get familiar with the criteria but would appreciate some insight. I see you have done this before. Thanks. --NortyNort (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking over the article again and I can't stand not hurrying those great pictures to FAC. OK, you got me. I'm getting some books. There's still enough time to get it done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, we don't need anymore pictures! They are awesome. I have created a bunch of dam articles before I want to rearrange/expand some sections. For one, I am going to write the "Statistics" section out in prose. The list is cool but a lot of it is cited in the infobox and a prose would suit it better. Also, I wanted to better work the "Construction" section so it is a little more explanatory and chronological. How long does the FAC process usually take?--NortyNort (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Once we get there, about three weeks I would expect. I would suggest a peer review before the FAC, that helps. There are several recent books on the dam.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DniproGES dam?

What is "compatible" about the DniproGES dam? Looking at the article, the architecture seems completely different (buttresses, much wider than its height.) Compatibility implies a connection or interchangeability. I think "similar" would be a better word if the dams really are similar. If not, what can we say here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirokado (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that project or the word "compatible" in the article.--NortyNort (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Several "see alsos" were added to the article last night, most were inappropriate and I removed them. Including that one. Good luck on the move if we don't speak again before then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Makes sense. Thanks and good luck with any problems if they come up.--NortyNort (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The map in the infobox is of Nevada, although the dam 'belongs' to two states (Nevada and Arizona.) If there is an administrational reason for that perhaps we can make that clear in the article (Arizona's very late ratification of the interstate compact means that "the punishment fits the crime" of course.) Alternatively a wider-area map might be better. Mirokado (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I do not have the technical expertise to make a new map, but have no objection to one being inserted by anyone who knows how.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, I used that map after effectively flipping a coin. Before my edit, it referred to Arizona but not in a way that actually worked. I decided it looked better with Nevada rather than Arizona. If you come up with a new map which shows both states, or at least enough of them to work, more power to you. If so, please also do a new map with both Washington/Oregon too, for bridges over the Columbia River. - Denimadept (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It will not be me. My job is to write. I suck at graphics. I'll look into it. BTW, I hope you guys are both going to comment on this new and improved article at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Commons admin Lokal Profil, whom I've dealt with in the past, to see if he can come up with a new map. If it is no good, we can scrap it and keep on as is. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The alternative to expertise is a bigger hammer. I think using the template for western USA is what we need, as in my latest edit. Hope that is OK. Mirokado (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, looks good, and if Lokal Profil comes in with something better (if he does, there's a tag on his talk page indicating he isnt' on much), it's a win win. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that looks good. It's not like we need a highly local detailed map for this one. - Denimadept (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

True & Kirby citation problem

I have added ref=harv to the bibliography references to make the citations link to them (which meant using the full author list consistently), but despite the date for True & Kirby displaying as (2009), the anchor generated is #CITEREFTrueKirby2010, so the citation links #CITEREFTrueKirby2009 are not working. Sorry I cannot at present see what the problem is. The other citation links now jump nicely to the bibliography. Mirokado (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected by using year instead of date, as suggested in the documentaton. RTFM as usual. Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

As you can see from the FAC, User:Brianboulton has suggested we cut some images. He is likely to be listened to. While I said earlier, on NortyNort's talk page I think, that galleries were discouraged, they are not absolutely forbidden per WP:IG. I would suggest that perhaps we consider creating two small (no more than eight or ten images), perhaps titling one "Dam construction" and the other "Dam operations" and put some images that fall into these categories, but whose usefulness to the reader cannot be questioned, in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How many of these images are at Commons? If most or all of them are, I'd get rid of most of these. For instance, keep one or two of the construction images, restore the Ansel Adams image to the infobox as notable on its own, keep the pre-construction sketch circa 1921, and remove effectively everything else. I agree that the images in place are good, but if they're too much, then so be it. But I'll fight for the Ansel Adams shot. - Denimadept (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All or virtually all. I uploaded them. I think we need to keep the concrete columns one, apparently it helped our sole supporter thus far understand the article better. I don't know about the Ansel Adams in the infobox, but for sure it should be left in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for more opinions. I think we can get away with any solution that does not cause "text sandwiches" or undue pushing down by images into the next section. Fasach Nua liked the images, but he works a lot with images, so he's biased :).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good progress so far. I think we can lose Mr Hoover - there is a whole article for pictures of him and this has no visual context relating it to the dam. Important to keep the memorial and tiling as you have. The now-gallery "3 - The upstream face of Hoover Dam slowly disappears..." adds more to the article than others as it shows bits that nobody can see now and works well as a thumbnail too - I'll be happy if we can find a home for that. Other pics in the gallery could go. The two colour photos in the Power plant and water demands section are mostly decoration - particularly the twilight shot could go. We have two pictures of the generators, one of which provides extra context with the visitors. Mirokado (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How about adding an external link Hoover Dam: pictures on Wikimedia Commons? There are 155 hits at present and that makes a nice free gallery.

I agree about keeping the Adams picture, but I really do like the juxtaposition with the modern view of the new bridge construction... Mirokado (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mirokado, you want to take a shot at it? You did a good job yesterday. I'd also lose the Ickes shot, if we can find something better to put in that section.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I will have a go. Mirokado (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking better. - Denimadept (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) The closer it gets to 'OK' the more difficult it is to make the next change.

I have removed both the speechmaking pictures - you can see from the gallery that they are virtually identical, everyone knows what someone looks like when they are making a speech and these pictures add no information.
I can't find another good place yet for the pair of pictures at the end of the article

Taking a break for a meal, will be back a bit later. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I guess the question is, what do we put in to illustrate the naming controversy question? We could use Ickes, we could use the stamp, there's also a handout brochure I nabbed off the B of R website which says "Boulder Dam"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the stamp image so we can consider it. It is difficult because of the fine detail, eccentric width and relative depth of image and text (easier if the text is 'almost always' deeper). Although I really liked the stamp in isolation I think it clutters the article up like this. An alternative would be to use the image as a reference to support the text (with a :Image:.. or whatever link.) Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. It's not a great image of the dam, it is adequately described in the article, and there are higher priorities. No need to use it as a ref. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Mirokado (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we cut out the images in gallery, the one near the bottom of the generators (the one with the tourists is much better), and the one showing the traffic on the dam (other images show cars on it if you look). Then find a better place for the "back side of the dam" image and then see where we are?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking exactly the same! The main problem with the back side of the dam is that it is confusing to have the two views from opposite directions next to each other, although chronologically and thematically they belong near each other. Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is the general idea. What do you think?

Glad you got there first, actually better than my next idea was, let's try with Panorama too Mirokado (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You think the panorama should go? I would move it to the foot of the article, if we put it under "Naming controversy" it wouldn't get as affected by other images. Also, Brian left a long list of prose comments at the FAC page, nothing terribly difficult..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Move it as you suggest to the end of "Naming Controversy" it does not split the main text of the article. Good idea. Mirokado (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mirokado (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done. And in time for Netherlands/Brazil!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Refs for power faq

Current refs 2 and 80a-c both relate to the same web document. Ref 2 has an extra quote and a name which is not used elsewhere. I suggest renaming ref 2 powerfaq and removing the other cite definition so all four will be ref 2. Alternatively make the two citations consistent. Mirokado (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better. I have tweaked the titles for refs 1 and 2 to be consistent - both summaries of the long-winded titles on the web pages. Where did the date for ref 2 come from? I see "last reviewed" months on both pages which might be more relevant than an original creation date. Should we also update access dates? Nice to get those two refs completely consistent in presentation as they are next to each other in the list. Mirokado (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It is what I call a "legacy" ref, which predates my involvement in the article. I say yeah, update accessdates, that aways looks good. I've looked at all the online refs, I think. If you can see no basis for the date of creation, chop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I will deal with that when convenient. Wimbledon semi-final with Murray has just started. Mirokado (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article!

We seem to have passed, though I am amazed at the speed of passage. Well done all!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While I only did a little bit recently, I applaud the people who have done the major work! - Denimadept (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent or earlier, it all adds up to a FA star (shortly to be delivered by the bot). Congrats to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks awesome, that was fast.--NortyNort (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

refs to NRIS/NPS database

The old website for NRIS "will be taken offline shortly. Please use NPS Focus". This new website is pretty much of a shambles at present, though. Searching for "hoover dam" gives two seemingly-identical hits, but only a generic url, clearly session-dependent. Either of those hits gives what looks like a permalink to the record, but this link also seems only to work within the original session. That record page provides the pdf which I have used for the reference and another link to photos which we could consider referring to in the external links section. Click on the big orange links lower down the page if others do not work for you as they did not for me. The pages are also littered with encouragement to download an extension which seems only to be available for Windows machines (I have a suspicion that NPS thinks that "standard browsers" and "Internet Explorer" are synonymous phrases). Please review the changes to the current ref 3.

It looks as if many NRIS template entries will need to be updated before the old site is retired and I imagine we should set a linkbot on to them once we work out how to access this new site. Can someone advise how to start with that? (Or perhaps this is already being dealt with?) Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. This article is part of the WikiProject on national historic places or something, see above. Perhaps an inquiry there?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a look around and will ask as you suggest. Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#NRIS website will move. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Impacts / Controversy

This page doesn't even mention the word "environment". There needs to be at least a section on environmental impacts of this dam. Omitting this has the effect of making this article not NPOV because this is a very important issue that has received extensive attention. I am finding thousands of articles on this topic in a google scholar search...articles discussing environmental issues specific to the construction of this dam. This material is not really discussed much elsewhere either: Environmental impacts of dams does not even mention the hoover dam. Let's get to work. Cazort (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's a good idea for addition to this article. I look forward to seeing what you can do with it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a start, but I put something up there. It could use a lot more work! Cazort (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a good start. I did a little editing, but didn't change the meaning of what you've written. - Denimadept (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding environment and NPOV. "had devastating impact" is not a very NPOV statement. Joe407 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the word "devastating" --Thunderbuster (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The continued use of the Hoover Dam's roadway

I have tried correcting a fallacious statement about the future use of the roadway across the top of the dam after the opening of the new bypass highway/bridge for U.S. Highway 93. However, some nitwit keeps on reverting my change, so I'll say so here. The article claims that the roadway will be closed. That is in contradiction with not only the published references on this route, but also of common sense:
http://www.hooverdambypass.org/faq.htm

Q: WHEN THE NEW CROSSING IS BUILT, WILL THE EXISTING ROADWAY ON THE DAM REMAIN OPEN FOR PUBLIC TRAFFIC? A The present roadway will remain open to Hoover Dam visitors. However, through traffic and truck traffic will not be permitted on the dam.

Common sense also tells us that the roadway will remain open for the use of the workers at Hoover Dam - not as a matter of convenience, but because they need to drive vehicles out onto the top of the bridge to do their maintenance work: sealing cracks, painting, and all that. 98.67.97.108 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about the changes I've made?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm 'a thinking there's been a change in policy, because it didn't say that when I revamped this article in June, and I see the FAQ page for the bypass was changed on August 4. Thanks for pointing this out.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Story of the Hoover Dam video

I am working on the FedFlix project to digitize videos in the holdings of the National Archives and get them online, and then working on a plan to get them copied over to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used in Wikipedia articles. In looking though what's available, I found this video, Story of the Hoover Dam. Do you think the video be useful for this article? Is there a place for it? I would love some feedback, to know if/how this and other videos can be useful. --Aude (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to embed the video? I obviously haven't watched the whole thing but at 27 minites long, it may serve better as an external link. The article is plump with media as well and it would be hard to find a spot. It seems like a good piece though.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure the best way to make use of such video that are indeed lengthy. Maybe a shorter clip from this, embedded? Then a link to the full video on Wikimedia Commons? --Aude (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just watched it, it is the sort of thing they played in high schools, quite good actually. Why don't we add it as an EL For now and if we can agree on a different use for it, that's good. Remember, we're TFA in 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added it in the EL. I will watch it during lunch today as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'm learning how to work with video editing software (on Linux) so to be able to extract short clips and get video materials into shape where they might be useful. Still figuring things out. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (PS - fascinating article! awesome work to get it to FA status and will be neat to see as TFA!)

I watched the video a little while ago. Very cool. It was narrated well and definitely helps explain how the dam operates and how it was built. Some clips or a clip from the construction portion would be especially good in the article. On a side note: I thought it was interesting how the video commented on Mexico receiving the Colorado, which has been a big point of debate over the decades. Also, the "angry river" and references to "man". Historical and a little old-fashion, but nontheless a good video on the dam. Oh, and thanks for the compliment on the article, it was a group effort and an article I am proud to read.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I enjoyed the video, it concentrated on the progress being made without feeling the need to apologize every two minutes for the effects on whatever. You could not get away with that today.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on getting the video up on commons (it exceeds the upload file size limit), along with a short clip or two (these are doable). See User:Aude/FedFlix/Video for what I'm thinking... and feel free to edit the page. --Aude (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead Bodies Entombed in the Dam

How many are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.181.102 (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

None —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.22.1 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Images of the ancient dam

Could a modern picture be included before halfway through the article? I was getting worried this was one of the dams that collapsed in the early to mid-20th century, and I had forgotten about it! While the Ansel Adams image is a great catch for the article, the proper image for the box and the lead is the nice modern image of the dam in action. All nice and pretty, but when I go to the encyclopedia, I want information, and it's nice not to have to dig through a featured article to find a current picture of an extant engineered object. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There were many main image candidates and there was a lot of discussion over the main picture for this article. It went to the famous picture by Adams. The picture that was used on the main page for Today's Featured Article was originally in its place. By the end of the year though, the bypass bridge should be complete and a new image will more than likely replace it.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with the new bypass opening, and a pedestrian walkway for everyone to take pictures from there, spectacular pictures will be a dime a dozen.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the reader does not matter. Just the desires of the editors. Got it. Been told that plenty of times by wikipedia social club members. Better luck for me reading next future article. Maybe. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

i would not say that. None of the main editors on this article are members of any "clubs" or "cliques" here. Due to the fact that it is an Ansel Adams pic, we put that first, and then the first part of the article deals with history. We had ample public domain pictures from the BuReclam web site, the problem was cutting down on the number of images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The dam hasn't changed substantially since it was built, and an image by Ansel Adams constitutes the gold standard for photography. recentism applies to photography as well as subject matter. Acroterion _(talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP might want to have a look at the Hoover Dam category at Commons, if they are looking for a specific type of photo. We have about 125 availble at the moment, all free for reuse by anyone. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and we added some of them to that. The Bureau of Reclamation has a huge archive. Online. Absolutely amazing. All PD. We had too many images, we deleted some during the review process as the article was too cluttered.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, if the OP tries to replace the Adams image, he should be aware he'll be reverted as soon as anyone notices. - Denimadept (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the threat Denimadept. I always love being threatened with reversion when I'm on the talk page discussing an issue. Oh, I see where I threatened just to replace the image. I missed that post of mine. Oh, thank you for slapping me down thoroughly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, wait, no, I never threatened to just replace the image. It's so nice of you to promise to slap me into my place. Thank you so much for making sure the reader knows how little they are valued and that they'll be put down immediately should they attempt to cross the "Anyone can edit," (but back away from my article) line.

The first 10 images in this article are historical. Ansel Adams is not the gold standard for digital images. He's the gold standard for black and white prints. He's an art photographer with an additional reputation for conservation images for his images of the west. This is not an art article. This is not a conservation article. This is not an Ansel Adams article. It is an article about an extant engineered structure. Wikipedia sells their version for phones which opens upn one section at a time. How many sections should I have to open up before I run across a modern photograph of an extant structure?

Asking for one modern image of an extant structure in the first dozen images of an article, by the way, is not Recentism, by the way. Please read articles before you use them to slap down IPs to the dirt they crawled out of. But, of course, thank you for choosing a essay to slap me with. Next time, try to find the planet the ball park is on first. --05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.172.218 (talk)

I understand your point about the photograph. I, quite frankly, am neutral. Here is why... Hoover Dam is more than just a monumental and unprecedented engineering feat; it is an icon which symbolizes a period of time in U.S. history and is accompanied by a great story. Adams is famous and him photographing Hoover Dam speaks to its fame and notability. Not saying we have to establish notability for the dam, but I see how how his photograph adds to the dam's fame and therefore, it contributes to the article and the lore of the west. Most dam articles I work on are for the most part about engineering. Hoover Dam on the other hand is different and I have no problem with a symbolic and artistic feel to the article. It is no normal dam by any means and the article speaks to its architecture amongst other near unique aspects. Also, as another editor pointed out, its external hasn't changed much. There are many great photographs of the dam, some on the page and some in the Commons, I don't think it is completely neccesary to show readers a recent color photograph of the dam immediately. I would support placing another photograph as the main image but at same time I don't have a problem with the current. If it were replaced, it would strongly support it being elsewhere in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is everyone, who isn't slapping me around, so focused on something I'm not focused on? Why can't one of the first 13! pictures be a modern picture of the dam? Did anyone look at the entire article? The first dozen pictures are nine historical images and three design shots, two of the same thing? If you put the Adams in the box, where it must remain under threat of being immediately reverted without discussion by the owner of the box, then why can't one of the other first 10 pictures be a modern picture of the dam? Why is it necessary to exclude a modern image of an extant engineered structure from the beginning of the article in order to argue that no discussions are allowed about editing a box in the article because IPs will be instantly reverted?

Why do I have to scroll through half a dozen pages to come up with a modern picture of the dam in an article about the dam? Is this article on the history of the dam? No, it's not. And that would be a perfectly fine subject for a wikipedia article, as Hoover Dam as a rich historical record. But this is not an article on the history of the dam, in spite of the pictures indicating that it is. Any extant engineering structure in an encyclopedia article, wikipedia excepted, it seems, has an image early on of the structure, not an historical image. You claim there are many good modern images, yet, in all this talk, and all this work, it never occurred to anyone that a good article on an engineering feat should have a good modern picture of it?

This featured article is not well thought out. The pictures in a featured article are not just about the number of pictures, the intense focus the editors of this article are fixated on. You need to come up with a variety of images that show the readers (yeah, those idiots who want to read the article, like me, who better not dare consider I'm part of the anyone allowed to edit) what they're reading about. Part of reading about an engineered structure is getting a good image in your mind of what it looks like, and, yes, what it looks like today. If it had been destroyed, even the site where it once stood would show something. A featured article isn't about writing something well, sourcing it, and popping a certain number of pictures in it. Each image should be well considered for its value as a contribution to the text in the article or to assisting the reader to great understanding.

Thank you for the ownership fight and the insults and for putting me, the IP, in my place according to you: any where but wikipedia. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a mighty big chip you've got on your shoulder; your IP status has nothing to do with this discussion or my response. I've had nothing to do with this article; my opinion is as an outsider. I happen to agree with your argument in many other cases, and would be more inclined to agree in this case if some random 1930s WPA photograph was in the infobox, or if, like most structures, the dam had changed significantly. In the case of this subject, the dam was an icon of the 30s and 40s, and I, as an outsider to this article, would tend to favor historic pictures over modern pictures for the body of the article to emphasize that. In this particular case I'd support leaving the modern images to the end. Many of the pictures of the intake towers, the back of the dam, and so on, simply don't exist as modern images since the reservoir would have to be drained.

With respect to the Adams image, the same argument could be applied to using the image in a book - a lithograph-printed Adams image is a poor substitute for one of his real photographic prints. We should use art - for that is what it is - where we can; digital color images are a dime a dozen. Acroterion _(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, my chip is huge. It's so big, I can't see the rest of your post, you know: the personal note about me rather than the topic zone out. So, why'd you bother writing any more, once you attacked me for the ridiculous size of my chip? You think anyone will read the rest of the post, anymore than I will? --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The images are arranged to have relevance to the text; we cannot simply dump a modern image of the dam into a section on pouring the concrete! I think the only question is, do we switch the Adams image for the one which we used on TFA day. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, now that I've gotten through most of the article, I realize this is an history of the dam article, not an article about the Hoover Dam as it is titled. The article contains almost no information about the dam functioning today, just a list, compared to the history section. You realize this? You realize this dam actually operates and provides power through a complex bureaucratic and technical system to millions of people all over the west? Something that is not discussed in the article? Not evident from the article? I think this article should be renamed the History of Hoover Dam. This is a strange FA, they're usually at least the article of the title. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is material on the dam's present day operations. 4,000 people or so view it daily, they all seem satisfied. The building and history is part of the fascination of Hoover Dam and should be in the main article. In fact, I'd say that if there were to be a technical article, it should be dubbed "Operations of Hoover Dam" or the like. There isn't, because the present operations of the dam are routine and similar to those of any other dam.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP's basic premise. The Hoover Dam is not ancient. It's not even a century old. There are living people around who remember times before it was built. The article is about the dam's history as well as its use present/past/future. I suggest the OP back off a bit, calm down, then revisit the issue later. - Denimadept (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am in personal need of calming down if you disagree with me. With that, although I won't dare the gods, it seems we could hardly go any lower, although I'm certain you'll try. (Deni-you might try aiming for the same galaxy as your target next time. Then again, you probably won't.) Hysterically yours, but no longer the least bit interested in this article, because it wasn't written to be read, the offensive -desperately in need of calming- protocol,--184.99.172.218 (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I love it when people get all projective on internet arguments. It's so easy to ignore. - Denimadept (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Both points are valid, and perhaps a neutral third-party can give the points of both users a impartial judgement and see if any merit holds. Just a suggestion, as there's no reason to bicker and insult one another, or make accusations, etc. Apple8800 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Penstock image

I appreciate all of your thoughtful and kind comments regarding the images I offered to this well crafted article on the Hoover Dam. My goal is to add visuals that relate to the articles content. While I can understand your points of view, I feel strongly that the Penstock image be included:

(I have taken the liberty of adding the image here for reference and direct discussion - if this is inappropriate, please feel free to remove it from this discussion section)

Even though the reader does not know exactly where it was taken (aside from the image caption, and description), It is a unique view (photographed in 2006) in a location that very few can see now in the current post 9/11 era. It was a privilege for me to gain access to create a photograph that shows the scope of size and power that happens inside the caverns of the Black Canyon walls. As you know, the "plumbing" aspect of Hoover was as great a challenge as erecting the Dam itself. Since this image illustrates that, and dovetails with your text, I believe it to be an enhancement for the reader to match text and visuals in this section. Your further consideration of adding this image, or allowing me to do so, is greatly appreciated. Kind Regards, Jeff -- user: JGkatz 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss it. It is a fine image. My major concern is that it may not be clear to the reader what he is looking at. I take it that this is the penstock within one of the old inner diversion tunnels? Incidentally, while we are on the story of the penstocks, I've had an uncomfortable feeling for a while we should add something about them; the story of their fabrication is an epic in itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am about sure that is a picture of where a pentstock splits off from one of the headrace (intake) pipes. I am looking for a spot where the image can go and I think if we had a penstock section, that'd be great. Honeslty, every possible spot, "Power plant and water demands" and maybe "Power distribution" are covered well. I'll keep thinking...--NortyNort (Holla) 21:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if I could write enough to free up more space. Maybe put the image down in the refs? --Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because, while the caption gives a rough idea of what the image is of, it doesn't really explain much. Maybe a diagram with an arrow would help? - Denimadept (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it in the penstock image to the "Power distribution" section along with a caption and some formatting. Base off of the diagram (that is already in the article), both pipes are called penstocks so I used that in the caption. Please feel free to reword to what fits best, I may have been too drawn out and technical. Also, the section looks good on my browser (Google Chrome) and 1280 x 800 resolution but might not on others.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yea, and if you look in the background, you can see the two windows panes for the little "tourist booth" they have on the penstock. I remember standing in there during the tour; you could feel the water surging through the pipe below your feet. Quite the experience.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They didn't take me there either time I took the tour, one was the hard hat tour pre-9/11 and the other was with a professional group. Envy. Congrats on Grand Coulee being TFA in a couple of days. I have a new book on the dam which is a collection of articles published by the gov't (written by engineers) as the dam was being built, they discuss the penstocks and their construction: a steel plant had to be built on site as the pipes were too large to go by rail.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the regular (other than hard-hat) tour offered at the dam. The feeling of a few hundred ft3/s rushing below my feet was the highlight and not to sound cheesy but a watershed moment that really drew my interest to hydropower within the field of civil engineering. I think I held-up the tour standing there too. I don't mean to rub it in but you have seen much more of that dam then myself. What's the book called? That information sounds like it would be great for the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Story of the Hoover Dam. It wasn't there in October, it was in February. It is published by Nevada Publications, these were apparently a series of articles published in Compressed Air Magazine. I am about to leave for two weeks so adding material will wait, but we are no longer under any time pressures here. It discusses such things as the concrete plants as well, that we don't really have time for but which were still amazing. But yes, we could easily add a section "Penstocks and turbines". I'd put it in the operations section simply because it could fit either in construction or operation, and construction is more crowded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture

Wouldn't it better to have a more modern, high-res, color photo as the first picture rather than that indistinct old thing from 1942? Vranak (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See the conversation two discussions above. The photo was taken by a famous photographer and is a good one, just old. I believe consensus is that when we get a good new one with the bridge, we will swap it out.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a image from downstream and elevated which shows both dam and bridge.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

...assuming it's decent quality, meaning not some kind of low rez phone image. - Denimadept (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To the no doubt much younger than me OP - Black and white does not mean lesser quality than colour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's mostly rock (canyon) and concrete (dam), so what color is he expecting? :-D - Denimadept (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no question, Demiadept, we will not be selling out Ansel Adams for a mess of pottage. It would have to be really good. And by specifying we want the bridge in there we eliminate the standard tourist pix.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

When this great images comes, we will know.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Adams image is fairly high resolution (for web imagery) as it is, scanned at 3000 x 2403. He probably shot it on an 8" x 10" negative using a view camera, so the original negative is equivalent to several hundred megapixels of sensor. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you search for "Hoover Dam Bypass" here, there are several images with the bypass complete and the dam. Most are elevated, some pretty good. All PD.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If I were to go there and make a new image for this article, I'd want an angle like this but with the finished bridge. I'm considering a trip there to do just that, but if I do it, it'll be a few months. - Denimadept (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would find such an image acceptable. Love going there, hope you get to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing some routine updating as I constantly do for articles I've worked on, I came across this image, which seems to fulfil the criteria above. It's PD, the dam is shown clearly, the bypass is complete and shown clearly. While the Adams image is great, keep in mind that it does not display the present state of affairs at the dam. I suggest we adopt this as new lede image and move the Adams image elsewhere in the article. We can always put it with the refs. Note that the new image shows the downstream situation--the stoney gates and so forth, and the boating barrier--very clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks good. If it's PD, upload it to Commons and move the Adams picture to elsewhere in the article. You just saved me a trip to LV! :-) - Denimadept (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I just took a closer look at that image. Does the rock have all those wavy vertical lines in it, perhaps from construction, or is that all compression artifacts? I still like it, but I may want to recreate it later. - Denimadept (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you compared with other images of the dam? --Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked you first. - Denimadept (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

These are artifacts, they are all over the photo and the pattern is somewhat irregular but not influenced by picture details, so I don't think they are the result of compression. My guess is that this has been scanned from a good CMYK ink-jet or similar print and we are seeing an interaction with the scanner resolution, but that is only a guess. The view is super (very good of the bridge too) although we don't really see the curve of the dam, but this image is in my opinion too low quality to use. While we were preparing the article, there was another modern picture taken from the Adams viewpoint. I liked the "then and now" juxtaposition of those two photos. Could we do that if we move the Adams picture? --Mirokado (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What I can do is what I should have done months ago, start looking for public information at BuRec and ask for a nice hires image. Was the modern picture the one with water shooting out? In the article under "operations"? I would object to a modern image that does not show the bridge, the historic image can be excused as not showing the present situation as lede image, however a modern photo without the bridge? No. We'd look out of date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've sent an email explaining the situation and asking for their help. I gave them that one as an example of what we were looking for, and explained why we could not use it. All of the ones on BuRec's database have the bridge directly in front of the dam and from what I saw have the powerhouse in deep shadow, obscuring details. I think we want one with the bridge above the dam. Bridge below the dam I think you'd have to be almost straight up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If they come up with something before I can go, I'll save money. Otherwise, I'll go and do what we know we want. I know where I want to go to get the picture, from the maps. It'll take a short walk. - Denimadept (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

They are mailing me a CD with images. Don't make any noncancelable reservations.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! - Denimadept (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Got them, I will upload tonight and also insert OTRS requests just to nail things down. I updated the article on the question of power allocation. I will seek consensus here before any change is made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing what they sent you. - Denimadept (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[File:Hoover Dam with Bypass from Reclamation.tif This] is the best one of what they sent. I'll take care of the OTRS request now. I'll upload another one later on this evening. Most of them are nice shots but useless for our purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean I'd really want more elevation, but it could do. - Denimadept (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The bridge dominates that pic. While it is an impressive object in its own right, this article is about the dam. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on just a second. Let me upload the other one. It does have more elevation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's already on Commons, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I hate sounding picky, but for me that one on Commons has too much shade on the dam wall. The pic above, and Ansel Adams' pic, both highlight the dam in full sun. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both those pics are underexposed, with shadowed areas too dark (probably a difficult shot on a bright day with one side of the canyon in shadow). I would wait for a better one. Of the two, the second from the higher elevation would be better. --Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, to be frank. You know, it may not be possible to capture the bypass without reducing the dam unacceptably in size and emphasis. And judging by the fact that all but one of the color photographs in the article appear to be taken at "high noon", the shade is going to detract on any such image. I could email the guy again and explain the concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So we want an image taken on a clear day around Noon. And, I should add, real "noon", not some kind of adulterated "noon" created by timezones and Daylight Savings Time. It's a deep canyon. If you want to avoid shadow, that's going to be the only time that'll work. It might require some measure of manipulation. I may have to go out there after all. - Denimadept (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I probably won't be in the area myself until next year, unfortunately. But do you think it will be possible to take an image showing the bypass, but not having the bypass dominate?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I wrote him and told him we wanted an image much like the rejected shot from a few days ago and said we were looking for " A dead on shot from elevation so that you see the powerhouse, jet flow gates. No deep shadow (full sunlight if possible) . The bypass in the shot but the dam shown as large as possible. The bypass not obstructing any part of the dam."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mustn't get pushy. We'll probably just have to do it. - Denimadept (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would feel guilty if you spent money to go and I had not tried everything I could before that ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Wehwalt. I think it will be pretty difficult to have a ground image where the bypass doesn't dominate unless you cut most of it out. An angled overhead may be the solution. Something akin to 1, 2 or 3. (USBR Search).--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wb, NortyNort, hope all is well. I think that any image that shows the bypass obstructing the dam would be unsuitable. Let's see if the guy comes back with more (possibly by snail mail) or tells me to go to hell.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

He says the image I want is a Federal Highways Administration image (they administered the Hoover Dam Bypass project) and it may take him several days to track it down. Or if he sees a similar image, he'll send it along as well. Let us see what happens. If the image that was rejected a few days ago was given to us problem-free, would it be suitable? this image.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd settle for that. There is light shadow across part of the dam and rock face but it doesn't detract, it shows the stoney gates and diversion outlets, and the powerhouse nearly complete. We see the entire downstream face of the dam. We do not see the jet flow gates well, due to the angle, but there are images that show that better, and that is not a big deal. The bypass is shown complete and well, but the face of the dam is as large as I've seen in this kind of photo. I would say "good enough" but of course if something better comes along ... that is, assuming he can supply it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not completely back yet, I am still a transient and won't have my own place until sometime next week. Good times. I like the photo you suggested and agree. As a main picture, it shows most facilities (the side of the jet-flow gates are visible) and the bypass as well. The dam itself takes up roughly the same amount of space as the Adams photo does now. The internet and us also have a plethora of photos of the dam as well. Those w/ the bypass are less common. I think this picture adds more value in that sense as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That picture would be OK if free of defects. Please add my thanks for the effort involved next time you write to your contact. It is really appreciated. --Mirokado (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall! I am always gratified when people take time from their working time to assist Wikipedians. We make pests of ourselves at many an archive!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious break

Ah, I just heard from my contact he tells me that image was taken by a contractor, so it is out of bounds. He did send me another, similar image which he says is PD. Once I hear from him with the name of the photographer and date it was taken I will upload at commons under the name File:Hoover Dam with Bypass Government.tif (that saves me a post:) ) . I will describe it as taken from a very similar angle, but slightly off. There is a small amount of shadow, I would say medium, darkening a small part of the Arizona side of the dam and about a third of the Arizona powerhouse. However, my contact tells me he was playing with it in Photoshop and it lightens up nicely with a contrast/level adjustment. The other works are about the same visibility on both images, I'm talking about jet flow gates/stoney gates/diversion (spillway) outlets.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, especially that they are so helpful. I look forward to seeing it. On other note, per your mention above, I think the addition you may to the distribution section is good. I can update it later unless someone else beats me to it.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Has something happened since? I like the way that section has grown, it was a single sentence when the article passed FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any news? Maybe I'll head over there this weekend. I'm in Albuquerque, so it's not THAT ridiculous a road trip. It's just that I can't guarantee the light or the weather. The weather.com report for Boulder City, NV looks good. - Denimadept (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the guy twice asking for the information I needed, he never responded. I can't urge you to drive that far, but if you go, good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the proper way to do this would be with an 8x10 view camera with current B&W film... nah. I don't have those or the time and patience for it. I'll just use my D90 and take exhaustive shots like I did with Harvard Bridge. Yeah. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As one obsessive (now in recovery) to another, good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if I was going to be obsessive about it, I'd also refresh my study of the Zone System, get the exact equipment he had, and maybe use similar plates. Not going there, in that sense. nope nope nope. - Denimadept (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, either way, enjoy the trip and don't stress too much. I understand the dam will be there for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make it. Costing it out just reminded me why I've not done it yet. :-( - Denimadept (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was getting a bit worried! Don't worry about the image, we'll survive with the Ansel Adams.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor Ansel, if only he were alive to take another picture. I will be out in the Vegas area in late April; I will try to head out to the dam if we don't have a good picture already. I must admit my camera isn't great but my brother is a professional photographer. Maybe he will let me use one of his nifty cameras or I will have to argue with him for the rights to use one of his pictures. He is a shrewd businessman. :)--NortyNort (Holla) 15:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I will be in Las Vegas at the end of March. I have no trouble with going to the dam again, but I don't see any roads downstream of the bypass on google maps. I am willing to hike so long as it isn't too demanding. Can someone give me the info together with what time of day would be good? The dates, if sun angle matters, would be either March 30 or April 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rent a black helicopter and fly under that new bridge to get a few shots in. You'll make the news. Alarbus (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The inclusion of the Hoover Dam in popular culture. For example. Transformers 1. and the percy Jackson and The Olympians book series. Just a small add on that should be done. 76.1.243.65 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Popular culture sections are basically trivial and we try to keep those out of articles these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a descendant of the Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, and I think when he is mentioned as just Secretary Wilbur, I think they should make a link to his wikipedia page.

I will do it, but it's really a borderline matter. We generally link on the first instance, but as there is a long gap between mentions, I guess it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

Since the article is semi protected and I don't have the necessary requirements to make the modification I wanted to know if someone could add the following template Template:Link GA for it wiki?--Anacleto 00 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already a FA. - Denimadept (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He meant that the version of Hoover Dam on the resurrected Italian Wikipedia has attained GA, for which I offer congratulations. I've added the appropriate template.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: just one question, why do you talk about a resurrected it-wikipedia?--Anacleto 00 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The shutdown for a day. And no need to remind me we had one too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo caption correction

Hi, haven't ever tried to edit on wikipedia before, but noticed an error in a photo on the Hoover Dam article.

The one photo is of Frank Crowe and Bureau of Reclamations engineer WALKER ROLLO YOUNG, not Walter. He is a first cousin of mine (several times removed), and here is a link from HooverDamStory.com to confirm.

http://www.hooverdamstory.com/young.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlymoogly14 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Google confirms that. Don't know if it was miscopied from the source or what. Thanks for the error, nice dam your cousin helped build. I'll make the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial name?

The so-called controversy about the naming is nothing more than a barrage of political attacks by various democrats of the era against a republican former president. If we consider this controversial, everything in wikipedia that has to do with modern American life will be controversial. I propose we strike the whole thing. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It was controversial at the time. - Denimadept (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Two points... I'm not sure that the time when the dam was named would be regarded by many as "modern". And your post could equally be described as nothing more than a political attack against "various democrats". You have every right to do that, privately and publicly, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason it is there is the article would be incomplete without an explanation of why it was once called Boulder Dam. It is presented neutrally.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt and the controversy is quite notable. Personally, I also like how it puts political bickering in context throughout history.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Power plant and water demands

The bit, 'maximum capacity of 2080 megawatts.[2]' might be more useful for researchers if we do the conversion to '2.08 gigawatts (GW)'. I recommend we specify gigawatts as this URL does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station 'averaging over 3.3 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production' I acknowledge gigawatts is not a universal specifier for power generation, but we should seriously consider the future. Sponsion (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I'm afraid, is a trailing indicator, and it looks to me like dam outputs are presently expressed in megawatts.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I’m planning to start an “In Popular Culture” subcategory, with the first entry referencing the major role it plays in Fallout: New Vegas. As this has been a featured article I want to make sure none of the more experienced authors has any concerns. --Chigibby (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a part of this article. You should probably write it as part of its own article, and we can do a see also. Popular culture runs awfully close to trivia. Thank you for starting a discussion, rather than simply doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. While trivia doesn't have to be pop culture, pop culture is often trivia. The issue here is, is the game about the dam, or is the dam an incidental part of the game? If it's incidental, then it doesn't belong here, but in the article for the game. - Denimadept (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am against such section in this article. I think a "popular culture" section can be okay in less notable landmarks but not Hoover Dam. The dam has been in countless movies, video games, documentaries and books. The section would be too much and it is unnecessary. It wouldn't benefit readers much who should already assume that Hoover Dam is part of our culture, just like the Golden Gate Bridge, Washington Monument or Empire State Building.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, a place for such wonders as "The Hoover Dam is mentioned in a song by the Lame Lemmings." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Both times I took the dam tour (1996 and 2010), they were very careful to tell us that the place where Chevy Chase got off an elevator in the National Lampoon movies and nearly fell out of the face of the dam, does not actually exist.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good, I always wondered if that existed. If I was the tour guide I’d have used it as motivation for people to stick together… ‘One wrong turn and you might end up like Chevy Chase”… - As the consensus seems to be against it, I won’t create an In Popular Culture section. -Chigibby (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Image, revisited

I got there today. I'm unclear how I can get to the area south of the bridge without getting arrested. Help? I intended to be there all day tomorrow, or until I got the image(s) I want, but now I wonder if today's drive was a waste of time. - Denimadept (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I saw nothing obvious when I was there. Let us know you're OK please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You were able to get to the area south of the bridge? How? - Denimadept (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I men, I saw no obvious way to get there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I just figured it out. If you're going to the dam from US93, you get off at the obvious place. If you're going south, there's a 4-way intersection at the bottom of the ramp. Left goes to the dam. Straight gets back on US93. RIGHT... goes to something called the Gold Strike Hot Springs Trail Head (no article, dammit). I'll try that on my way through tomorrow morning. Google Maps shows a trail (maybe) to where I'm talking about. Volcanism near the Colorado River? By the dam? Really?? If you're going north on US93, go LEFT at the bottom of the ramp, straight under the overpass, and straight. Hm, maybe not something to do in a few minutes: Gold Strike Hot Springs Trail reviews says it may take 6 hours round trip. Also, the driving may be trouble for normal cars. Sounds like something to do with a buddy, lots of water, and a good amount of time. So the reason the Hoover Dam people don't know about it would be because it's outside of their purview. - Denimadept (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Largest reservoir

The department of interior says that is is the largest by volume. [4] I tend to believe them. If someone has an reservoir that is larger by volume in the US when we can discuss. Based on edit summaries one key point here is that a lake is not a reservoir. The WP:RS clearly states that it is the largest. Note also List of reservoirs by volume has Lake Mead as the largest. Lets use WP:BRD. I have reverted back to what the original source says for now. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That was my point in the initial revert. As far as I know, Lake Meade is the largest reservoir.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Role in irrigation and water supply

I came here to learn how the dam contributes to agriculture. All the article says about that is "Water released from the Hoover Dam eventually reaches the All-American Canal for the irrigation of over 1,000,000 acres (400,000 ha) of land. Water from the lake serves 8 million people in Arizona, Nevada and California." On one hand it does not say whether the dam supplies much or all or just a little of the water in the All-American canal, nor does it say whether all or much or only a little part of the water from the dam reaches that canal. Does the dam supply other major water distribution systems? The environmental impact section never describes the environmental impact of watering those 1,000,000 acres. The article says very little about the economic effects of the irrigation. I do not know about these things. But the talk page shows some people do, and I think those topics deserve more attention. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a section at the bottom of the article called "See also" I'm adding Water_in_California. There is a link to the All-American_Canal, not sure if that will answer your questions. In Arizona there's the Central Arizona Project that delivers water to Phoenix, Tucson and farms. And, I'm sure if you looked at articles on California, Nevada and Arizona there would be details about agriculture. There has recently been a lot of news about the salty run-off from the farms served by the All American Canal and lower Colorado River around Yuma AZ and what to do with it and also allowing Colorado_River water to reach Mexico and the gulf/delta ecosystem. If you want to add anything to the articles, please use a reference. I watch most of these articles so if you make a mistake, I can help correct it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason there isn't much detail is because the Hoover Dam is upstream of much of the canals. Two major canals, the Central Arizona Project (water to Arizona) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (mostly drinking water to Southern California) come off Lake Havasu, created by Parker Dam. This section of the Colorado River article explains it all pretty well. I do agree there should be more detail, or w/ls to guide readers to the info. I did add some detail on the three major canals with links to the article. Hopefully that satisfies the need. I don't think the environmental impacts of that irrigation should be included in Hoover Dam but rather the respective articles on those projects and dams.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference recspi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ A source that supports April 1999 spillway use only: Is it Hoover Dam or Boulder Dam

[recspi-1] Cite error: The named reference recspi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] A source that supports April 1999 spillway use only: Is it Hoover Dam or Boulder Dam

[1]

[2]