Talk:Kajaki Dam

Infobox image

I have reverted Fareed30's replacement of the infobox image three times already. I am not trying to start an edit war or be overly aggressive but I do not think a picture of the reservoir behind the dam (File:Kajaki Dam and spillway in 2012.jpg) better suits the long-standing image (File:AfghanistanHelmandKajakaiDamm.jpg) of the actual dam and power house structure. My reasoning from Fareed30's talk page:

1. The article is primarily on the dam, the reservoir is a by-product of the dam. If the article were on Kajaki Lake, I could see the other image as more suitable.
2. A picture of the lake and tips of the dam and spillway isn't the main impression you want to give to readers of Kajaki Dam. With the image of he dam in the infobox, you can then see all the specifications for the dam below which best describe the dam, not the reservoir.
3. As far as how recent the picture is, all the image shows is a full reservoir but no major changes in the dam itself. It isn't markedly different.
4. The only time you use the image of a lake is when you don't have one of the dam. There are plenty of articles on multi-purpose dams (like Kajaki) and the image of the dam is used. Examples: Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, Three Gorges Dam, etc.

I would like to open a discussion about this, comments welcome.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The image of choice for the infobox in this case is to put one that is latest because the dam was rebuilt and one that shows the dam, its spillway and the reservoir. The 2004 image NortyNort likes is too specific. Viewers want to look at the entire Kajaki project in the infobox. You can see so many other examples in other dam infoboxes. Readers can look down at the 2004 image that NortyNort likes in the short history part if they want. Last but not least, this article is NOT just about a dam, but also about its spillway, power station and everything else relating to the project.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, the article is primarily on the dam. The image you replaced it with primarily shows a body of water. There is little you can easily see that distinguishes it as Kajaki Dam. To an untrained eye, you can hardly notice the dam and spillway there. Readers can see the image of the reservoir in the first section with better understanding. I am not pushing a point of view. You changed the long-standing image and are giving a very thin justification for reverting it. I cannot understand your argument right now and this has become disruptive editing. The dam was not "rebuilt" in 2004, the generators in the power station were refurbished;, something you wouldn't see on any new image of the outside of the dam. And please cite dam article examples where the lake is pictured in the infobox but a perfectly good picture of the dam elsewhere in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This article is about the Kajaki "hydroelectric power plant"[1], which includes a reservoir, a river, a dam, a spillway, and a power station, etc. Therefore, an image which shows all of these is more suitable in the infobox. The image you prefer is suitable in a general dam article so that readers see what a dam looks like.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My image shows a reservoir, a dam, a spillway, a river plus the area. This gives readers a better idea of how big the project is.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Most readers know what a lake looks like over a specific dam. Your image shows the crest of a dam and spillway; a mere fraction of the structures. That image is not immediately identifiable with Kajaki Dam. You haven't provided examples of dam articles where a picture of the lake is used over a perfectly good picture of the dam. I have been working dam articles since I started editing on Wikipedia and have never seen such a case. It is accepted a common sense to put a picture of the dam in the infobox for an article on a dam. I find it very hard to understand your case at this part.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes but there are very tiny lakes and also very large ones. What part you don't understand that this particular article is about the largest "hydroelectric power plant" in Afghanistan, which includes the largest reservoir, largest river, largest dam and spillway, and the first thing to display to readers is an areial view of the entire project so they can see the size of it, and from there on we show them a closer look of the dam, spillway, power station and everything else. The 2004 image mostly shows dirt and it's difficult to calculate the size of the dam, the river or the lake. Some dams are very very tiny (built without a reservoir) [2] while others are very very big like the one in China. Your choice of the image is not bad at all except that it doesn't give the reader an idea of the dam's size or show the spillway which is very much part of it. When there are better latest images we normally use those. I'm not trying to get on your nerves but trying to make this article stand out. Let's keep it as is until we find something like this, which quickly gives the reader a good idea of the size and everything.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • @ Fareed30, your photo looks like it was taken from a plane or something... do you possibly have an image that shows the entire complex from the front from roughly the same height? That would be the best option at this point. Shannon 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SEPS/NEPS

SEPS is the Southern Electrical Power System. It is often misquoted as South Eastern Power System, but it isn't (it isn't in the south east, it's mostly in the south west). Similarly NEPS is Northern Electrical Power System. I've seen this misquoted in several official reports including from USAID, USACE and SIGAR, but I'm unable to tell when the drift from the original name started. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)