Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron

Analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration source with respect to the topic at hand

Much of the back-and-forth has involved saying that a source flatly considers them to be one lake vs. a more qualified statement that they consider it to be one lake in certain contexts such as hydrology and level data. This comes up twice in the article, although the second is in a state where Kwamikagami has also deleted the "qualified" statement. I have been shifting some of the references references to the second statement and he has been shifting them back. In an attempt to clarify this, I have analyzed what one of the most prominent of the involved sources says on this, the NOAA (Analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) . The page numbers are just as it printed for me but give a rough idea; all items are in sequence. The word "lake" was used to refer to it ONLY where specifically noted:

Page 1

• Referred to "Huron-Michigan" basins
• Map: Lake Huron and Lake Michigan shown and labelled separately.

Page 2

• Listed Huron, Georgian Bay and Michigan as separate basins.
• Listed "Huron basin" separately

Page 3

Listed Michigan and Huron as separate basins (BTW, also "Great Lakes" as a basin)

Page 4

• Listed Huron and Michigan as separate basins.
• Referred to "Lake Huron" as such
• Referred to "Lake Michigan" as such
• Listed Huron and Michigan as separate basins
• Referred to Lakes Michigan and Huron as seperate lakes

Page 5

• Map names Michigan and Huron as separate lakes
• Says: Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake hydraulically because.... (note the qualifier/condition placed on the "one lake" statement, and that they are referred to separately even in this statement)
• Refers to Lake Michigan-Huron
• Refers to Lake Michigan-Huron again
• Refers to Lake Michigan
• Refers to Lake Huron

Page 6

• Chart shows "Lake Michigan" , "Lake Huron" and "Georgian Bay" all separately
• Refers to "Huron basin"
• Refers to Lake Michigan
• Refers to Lake Huron

Page 8

• Level data chart combines them and labelled "Michigan-Huron"

Page 9

• uses "Michigan-Huron" as an adjective for "levels" twice
• Refers to Lake Michigan and Lake Huron separately
• Refers to Lake Michigan-Huron twice

Page 10

• Refers to Lake Michigan-Huron twice
• refers to "Michigan-Huron"

Page 11

• Refers to "Michigan-Huron"

Summary:

By quick count:

• Of the times the names are used, about 63% are Michigan or Huron separately, and about 37% combined as M-H or H-M
• Of the times that the word "lake" is used with any of these terms, approx 27% are for them combined and approx 73% are for them separately.

Conclusions:

• It can NOT be said (unqualified) that this source considers them to be one lake, "Lake Michigan-Huron"
• It CAN be said that in certain contexts this source considers them to be one lake.

In previous discussions I thought that this was obvious / could be stipulated, but either way I now did the detailed work to establish that. I could do the same with the other sources as well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We all acknowledge that "Lake Huron" and "Lake Michigan" are customary usage. You've demonstrated that's true even in scientific sources which speak of MH. However, you're taking it further: You've been arguing that because scientific sources use the individual names, what they *mean to say* is that they are separate lakes from a scientific POV. We would need them to *actually* say it, say that they are one lake in hydrology but two lakes in geology/ecology/meteorology/whatever. AFAICT, no source says that. Without your POV being sourced, you're trying to infer an unstated intent. This is prototypical WP:OR.

Take an analogy with "system": Sources speak of the Great Lakes system, but also of the Huron-Michigan system and even the Lake Huron system, within the same source. According to your rationale, we'd have to say that the Great Lakes are only a "system" in certain contexts. That would be OR going beyond our sources. In fact, they're simply a system, containing smaller systems, and contained within the hydrosphere, which is also a system.

You brought up a counter-example yourself, where you said, Listed Michigan and Huron as separate basins (BTW, also "Great Lakes" as a basin). Does that mean that M and H are only separate basins in certain contexts, or that the Great Lakes only occupy a basin in certain contexts? Of course not: These are basins simultaneously but at different scales.

Or, further afield, the Earth is only a planet in certain contexts, or humans are only animals in certain contexts, or Massachusetts is only a state in certain contexts, etc. There's no end to the qualifications we could infer because sources refer to things differently in different contexts. Some of those might even be justified: Is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legally not a "state"? (Does the US therefore technically have 46 states?) Does human–animal communication mean humans are not animals? Or the phrase "the Sun and stars" mean the Sun is not a star? I think we could make such arguments for common usage (calling someone an "animal" is not a tautology, and no-one would pick the Sun when wishing upon a star), but in order for us to make such a claim for science/jurisprudence/etc., we'd need sources which state it explicitly.

Our sources present simultaneous POVs of MH as one lake and as two, depending on context, just as humans may be presented as animals and not-animals depending on context. But that doesn't mean that they are considered two lakes by some scientific definition that they forgot to mention. — kwami (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making all of those claims. My only conclusions ("claims") from this are the two stated conclusions. It is improper to say / imply that the source considers flatly considers it to be a single "Lake Michigan Huron" and proper to say that they consider it so in limited contexts. Therefore placing the references on the qualified phrase (as I've been trying to do) is correct, and reverting to move them to the unqualified phrase (as you've been reverting me to do) is incorrect. Also that your deletion of the qualified phrase was incorrect. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, then. We have sources that they are one lake hydrologically. That's no different than humans being animals biologically, or Massachusetts being a state legally, or the Sun being a star astronomically. In none of those cases do we qualify the claim: humans are biologically animals "in certain contexts", even though the biological subject of animal communication excludes humans. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like North8000 is off the grid for a week. Does anyone else here see a point we aren't addressing properly, or think we're abusing our sources? — kwami (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference is that it is only considered so in that specific unusual case. Your analogies are where the statement is the norm rather than a special case. A better analogy would be if source XYZ said that for heat transfer-to-planet gain calculations the Sun, a star can be treated as a 1,391,000 km dia. flat disk radiating with a 5,500 deg. C black body radiation curve and energy density. We CAN say that XYZ says something in that context, but could NOT say "XYZ considers the Sun to be a flat disk". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it. That's not at all how I read the sources. They don't say HM behaves as if it were a single body of water, or that they're treating it as a single body as a simplifying assumption, they simply say it is a single body of water. You demonstrated earlier that you understand how the hydrodynamics works. Now, 'lake' is just a label: some sources use it and some don't. But whether they label them a 'lake' or not, they state that H and M are hydrologically one.

What you would need to include that POV is a sourced statement that actually makes that claim. We don't get to read between the lines and infer intent.

Anyway, I think we risk degenerating into a circular argument again. Both of our interpretations are explained, so I'll try to refrain from responding further, and let's see if others find merit in what you say. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be gone 9 days. Have a great week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I have to say that almost every version of this article makes it abundantly clear that the concept of "Lake M-H" is generally, if not completely, restricted to certain specialised fields. Therefore the continuous fighting to insert and remove disclaimers and words that might support some fabled "real world" attempt to have them classified as a single lake all seems rather pointless. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

It appears that the problem here is the belief that even in the fields in which it is found, they don't really mean what they say. That's not just a qualifying statement, but a fundamental disagreement in interpreting our sources. (We had similar comments earlier by another editor, that "if only they hadn't used the word 'lake'", all this misunderstanding would have been avoided, because they of course are not / can not be a lake.) — kwami (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere earlier on this talk page I said I thought the use of phrases like "hydrologically/hydraulically one lake", found in many sources, was largely an acknowledgement that although normal, ordinary usage is of two lakes, physically they are one. "Hydrologically" means something like "in terms of water". "Hydraulically" is a bit more technical but comes down to the same thing. The qualification is not because they are not one lake but because they are so overwhelmingly thought of as two, and it is very useful to speak of the two parts, whose names are Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. But "in terms of water" they are one. That's how I understand it anyway. Pfly (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I read it the same way. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm stupified that such a simple misreading can cause such a kerfuffle. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Overview and representation of sources.

I made it back. The article looks good. I think that the the one open issue can be resolved by moving one cite to a later phrase in the sentence. I could do a similar analysis of the "Michigan Map" reference (currently ref #1) but I think that it's obvious that the result would be the same. The issue could be fixed by merely moving the location of its cite in the lead to the next phrase in that same sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's the ref you moved earlier, it supports the phrase it currently is used for, not the following one. There are two other open issues which others have supported. To repeat:

• "In the context of hydrology, however, the two can be considered as one body of water."

  Actually, in the context of hydrology, the two *are* one body of water. That's why we add 'in the context of hydrology'. This smacks of weasel wording.

A NOAA schematic of the hydrology of the Great Lakes, taking Lake Michigan–Huron to be a single lake with three basins: Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Georgian Bay.^[1]

• Three components per NOAA

  In the NOAA source, Michigan, Huron, and Georgian Bay are treated as three components of MH. This has been mentioned by others above; IMO we should at least mention that while the Huron–Georgian divide is not the bottleneck that Michigan–Huron is, it is significant enough to sometimes warrant treating Georgian Bay as a third component. If fact, since NOAA pubs are PD, we can use their schematic (right) to illustrate the point.

— kwami (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're talking about a few different things here. First, to clarify, I'm only talking about the first sentence in the second paragraph in the lead. And I'm saying that the location of the cite misrepresents the source. If there is a question on this I could do the same analysis to confirm that. And that moving it one phrase later would move it to a phrase that accurately represents what the source says, overall. On your points which follow, I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, added.

Which citation, on which phrase? — kwami (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Current reference #1 in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Moving it to the next phrase in that same sentence would fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is being used to support "some sources count Michigan-Huron as a single lake", and it states, "Lake Huron-Michigan .. is technically the world's largest freshwater lake. This is because what have traditionally been called Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are really giant lobes of a single lake". You want to move it to support "consider it a single lake in certain contexts such as water-level data and hydrology". But that's not what the ref says: it says that it *is* a single lake. There's no hint about this only being true "in certain contexts". — kwami (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(added later) IMHO the "in certain contexts" is a summary of what the ref says. About 90% of it calls them two lakes, and about 10% of it says with-a-qualifier-one-lake. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Technically" IS a qualifier on that statement meaning only in a technical respect, meaning only in the context of whatever criteria they consider "technical" to mean. The rest of the piece makes it very clear that then source does not consider it simply/flatly to be a single lake. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I read "technically" to mean something like "actually", as in 'despite not usually being considered, M-H is actually...' Pfly (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, "technically" effectively means "in reality", as opposed to common perception. Where do they say that it is not a lake? They speak of the two lakes, but then say (BTW, they're actually one lake). This article is about that parenthetical. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I read "technically" to mean "with respect to some important technical aspect". But I was only discussing that to converse with Kwamikagami on the point that they raised. The more relevant point is that that majority of that reference treats them as two separate lakes ( I could do a similar analysis to prove that, but am thinking that such is so obvious that all would stipulate / agree with that without going through the exercise), and so a flat statement otherwise regarding that reference is a mis-representation of the reference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They treat them as two lakes because that is the conventional approach. But they make an aside that, actually, they're a single lake. That is what the citation is being used to support. They are not saying that they are only a single lake in certain contexts, which is what you want to use them to support.

Anyway, I think you and I will just go around in circles again, so I'll stop now. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Can somebody else read the above and say what you think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, after that 17 day frenzy of a discussion, this is still sticking in my brain as an unresolved issue, a mis-represented reference. I might try moving the cite to later in the sentence and see if you'd have the mercy leave it so that I can stop thinking about it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But I see that as misrepresenting the source. You brought this up several times, and no-one ever agreed with you on it, while people have disagreed with essentially the same POV elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of what you just said, especially the characterization in the last phrase. But with the impasse here, it would probably take me a 1/2 hour of work (full analysis of that source like I did the previous one) to get this relatively minor problem fixed in some way on a higher plane than just editing it in the face of this disagreement. Probably not worth it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion

Note on improvement: Modern history/fields of study should be added: transport, settlement, regulation, climatology, ecology, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We do have concerns about content forking. Transport, perhaps a bit, since you don't need to go on a river or canal to get from one side to the other. Settlement, I don't see how it couldn't be adequately covered in the individual articles; for the same reason, I see modern history as being relevant only in the sense of understanding the relationship of M and H, why they're considered two lakes, etc. Regulation, yes: Canadians have freedom of movement in Michigan, just as Usonians do in Georgian Bay, so in effect it's treated as one lake (though I don't know what it is de jure). For ecology the combined waters is relevant, though perhaps not terribly, since most of the biome can move the 3m upstream from Erie anyway, and similarly into Superior: Niagara's the only serious barrier. For climatology I don't know, but I doubt the loss of Mackinac Falls had much climatic impact. (Maybe some effect carried by seiches?) Industrial pollution, though: if you pollute Erie, it will have minimal effect on Huron, but if you pollute either Huron or Michigan it will contaminate the other. Here the concept of MH becomes essential. — kwami (talk)

It just needs to be in the context in which sources treat it. If the access to Michigan-Huron had settlement implications for pre-European and post European settlement, that should be mentioned/discussed, or the effect of water use/diversion in Chicago has implications important for M-H that should be mentioned, or if the lake has effect on rain patterns in Ohio, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. — kwami (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Coverage here should be limited to topics that relate to the paired entity, the pairing of them, or that which causes them to be paired. Otherwise we'd be headed to a huge content fork/duplication of either Lake Michigan or Lake Huron or Great Lakes material. I think that this sort of agrees with the above comments. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No article expansion, please, if that expansion could in any way be used at the Lake Michigan or Lake Huron articles. Expand those articles with settlement, history, transport, etc. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think cultural aspects would be best included in Great Lakes region. I agree this article should remain focused on the technical (hydological) aspects in which the two lakes are one. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he means in situations where MH being one lake is relevant. If the question of one lake or two is irrelevant, then of course we would follow common usage and treat the lakes separately. I doubt there are many situations where it is relevant. — kwami (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with North8000, Binks, Older/Wiser - take care with the expansion to keep the focus tight on the coupling between the lakes in this particular article. I'm pretty sure you'll find sources discussing water use, lake-driven storms, etc, will focus on each lake individually (as they are implicitly local effects), and won't be necessarily appropriate here. I'm sure there are interesting topics that could be included though. DanHobley (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(and also Kwami, rereading his comment 17:29). DanHobley (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The expansion would only be in the context of the sources that actually discuss Lake Michigan-Huron.Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"However, long term average flow through the Straits is eastwards at around 1,500–2,000 m3/s (53,000–71,000 cu ft/s),[14] in keeping with the main inflow to the system from Lake Superior through St. Mary's River in the west, and the main outflow through the St. Clair River in the east.[15]"

This statement is almost complete nonsense. It would make some sort of sense if St Mary's River flowed into Lake Michigan, and the water outflow of Lake Superior then had to flow through Mackinac Strait into Lake Huron and eventually Detroit. However, St Mary's River flows into Lake Huron, not Lake Michigan, and therefore, the outflow from Lake Superior runs into, and then out of, Lake Huron and never has to go anywhere near Lake Michigan.

The long term net average flow eastwards through the Mackinac Strait come entirely from the net inflow from streams and rivers into Lake Michigan, and the rain and snow that falls directly into Lake Michigan. The flow from St Mary's River has nothing to do with it.Eregli bob (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it depends on St Clair being on the Huron side, not on St Mary. What about, immediately after fn [14], "as the main outflow is the St. Clair River in the east"? — kwami (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no, because the main inflow is still Saint Mary's from the higher elevation of Lake Superior and the outflow is Saint Clair to the lower elevation of Lake St Clair. Thus, for example, it is understood by scholars that damming on the St. Mary caused the first modern recorded decrease in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron in the late 19th century. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) That's not to say, that the article cannot be improved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement, as it stood yesterday, insinuates that the net eastward flow through the Mackinac Strait, is because of that flow though the strait includes the flow from the St Mary's River in the west, to the St Clair River in the east. The person who wrote this clearly thought that the St Mary's River flows into Lake Michigan, or has a problem understanding the purpose of the english language phrase, "in keeping with". Obviously, a flood into Lake Huron, from any cause, would cause a corresponding flow into ( or out of ) Lake Michigan, but would not be the cause of the net annual flow out of Lake Michigan.Eregli bob (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, to the extent it "insinuated" anything I take it that's been cleared up? The St. Mary's is the primary inlet adding to the mass of Lake Michigan-Huron, the more mass, the more it will flow through the outlet -- and the more current and hydrogen bonds pulling downstream. Upstream is in the west, downstream is in the east. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is, other than gravity, nothing significant is pulling, only pushing. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, but a flood on the St Mary would cause a westward flow into Michigan. It's not like water entering from Superior sucks the water out of Michigan. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

True. It's gravity that does any manner of "sucking" but to the extent that the water from the inlet carries the water to the outlet it does move it all along, in a manner similar to sucking because the Michigan-Huron basin has no other main outlet, for its main inlet. Friction and hydrogen bonds do "the sucking." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the problem with the statement is the "in keeping with" linkage between two correct phrases. Per normal sentence structure, this implies that the latter determines the former which is not correct. In reality, the average flow at the straits is simply determined by the net excess water from Lake Michigan. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, regarding the sentence construction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I split it, with a note asking anyone who disagrees to revert me. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, though we omit the reason the average flow is eastward. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just making the little change. Feel free to do more. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Rearranged and reworded a bit. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Article stable, so I removed the duplicated refs from the lead. A bot should clean up within a few minutes. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence format

The lead sentence reads, Lake Michigan–Huron (also Huron–Michigan) is the name given to the combined waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron (my bolding). Since the subject is a name, i.e. a word or phrase, it should be italicized. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IMHO having both bolding and italics is overkill. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, since bolding and italics serve different purposes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting: Two styles can be used at once for distinct purposes, e.g. a film title is italicized and it is also boldfaced in the lead sentence of the article on that film. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with North8000 on this one; it does seem to be overkill, even if a case can be made that it could be semantically correct. Unlike film titles, lake names aren't typically italicized. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The film title example is just that, an example. My point is that MOS:WAW applies wherever a name is mentioned as a name. It's an instance of the use–mention distinction:

• Lake Michigan–Huron contains the waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron;
• Lake Michigan–Huron is the name given to the combined waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

The first sentence is about the lake itself, while the second one is about the name. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS is not a policy. It itself says that it's just "attempt to follow" and that there will be exceptions. For me this is a minor issue, but it's still good to make sure key points get into the discussion. And IMO when portions of it put together come up with overkill, that certainly qualifies. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence was changed just a bit ago, from its long-standing version.[1] The old way was better, as the article is about the water body system and not about the name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I agree with Sangdeboeuf's concept and overall view but mildly disagree with the their formatting end result. IMO this article is really just about the name or concept or the "lens" for viewing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. It also covers the reasons (e.g. closely connected hydrology between the two lakes) for sometimes using that name/lens. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are fully covered elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion has been the italics. You are introducing a different new (disputed) potential change away from the long standing version, in essence removal of the "name" terminology. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No. The long standing version was the version I reverted to. The topic of italics only arises because the long-standing version of the first sentence was changed. (Sandebuef's comment already introduced precisely in this discussion the difference between the two sentences, one about the name (which is the 'new' sentence) the other about the concept (which is the sentence this article had for most of its history.) None of the article is about the name, there is no etymology, no discussion of the name at all in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Rather than characterize, I'll just provide the details. "The name" text (which you are deleting) has been in since November 2020 and prior to that it was not. Let's just decide here and implement what we decide. I lean towards having "the name" and no italics, but could be happy with it either way. Considering them to be a single lake is a novel and unusual concept not supported by sources. Even the centerpiece source for the argument merely combined the two for brevity for and only when talking about levels because they have the same water level. I think that "the name" wording avoids using the voice of Wikipedia to elevate it to something else. IMO the topic of this article fails wp:notability and would be better covered by a few sentences in the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan articles. And most of the content of this article is a duplication of what is in those articles and Great Lakes articles. But IMO a short article focused on the concept of considering them jointly and the name that arises from that concept is also fine, but it should be limited to that. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your Afd or merge position was rejected by consensus in 2012. This should not be another Afd/merge discussion. Further details on this wording history, the pre last-November long standing version wording ("is the combined waters") was proposed by editor Pfly in this talk page discussion and implemented by consensus in September 2012. Since the article does not discuss the name, we should go back to the prior consensus version, obviating italics. (In actuality, it's only your OR that there is some silent subtext issue in using the hyphen-portmanteau, otherwise find RS that state that subtext. (There is no such subtext) I do not believe there are any RS on subtext, and no other RS on the etymology, so Wikipedia can't/won't have article text on the word itself. Also, I don't think its a real argument - there is no reason to argue, hydrology describes a physical real world phenomena, and brief wording for concepts is what happens in the world -- it's not hard to reconcile and understand a world where the is Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan-Huron, any more than it's hard to reconcile and understand that there is Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and World Ocean, all able to exist at the same time because people have several useful ways to examine things. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not proposing to AFD this, I was making the case for confining this article to the things unique to the two lakes view rather than duplicating things covered elsewhere. And an opening sentence that supports that. My arguments are what they are and are not dependent on creation of any "subtext" issues, whatever you meant by that. Also "OR" refers to something in article space. Normal talk page conversations would almost all be OR if put into article space so please don't try to put that scarlet letter on my talk page discussion. This was regarding your comments on my post. Regarding the overall questions, I've made my points and will be fine with whatever is decided. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)