Jump to content

Talk:Floodplain

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Collins (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 22 November 2006 (→‎A little change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed merger with Flood plain

It's not clear cut to everyone which term should remain, but looking at institutions and individuals from across the English-speaking world, "floodplain" seems to be the more widely accepted form, while "flood plain" appears to be moving towards disuse (which seems to be the trend with compound nouns that become commonly accepted). And so I am now merging the two here. Daniel Collins 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The current images do not illustrate what a floodplain is. The first, from Alaska, shows a wide braided river. The part of the land between the threads of water is part of the river not the floodplain. The second, from South Carolina, illustrates a recent high water mark. It's very good for a page on flooding not floodplains. Daniel Collins 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The USGS description for the Alaskan image describes it as showing a "gravel flood plain." I'll admit that the "floodplain" part of the image in foreground is less distinct than the riverbed. There is another USGS image of Turtle Creek in Wisconsin that might better fill the bill. Give me time to upload it and we can compare them. As for the South Carolina image, it sure looks a lot like the floodways of our creeks here in Indiana; but it's also certainly an excellent example of a high water mark. -- In a bit of a rush just now, Cuppysfriend 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's not in a rush. I looked for some diagrams, but didn't find any that I knew were usable by WP. Daniel Collins 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out these USGS images and tell me what you think: Turtle Creek, Rock County, Wisconsin; and Lance Creek, Niobrara County, Wyoming. -- Cuppysfriend 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both are good - the second is prob better coz it shows the boundary of the floodplain too. Good stuff.
My bias is to have a conceptual diagram alongside an actual photo, but I'm starting to think that it might be useful to have a series of images at the bottom of the article as well. By looking at different images it is easier to recognise the elements of a structure, by seeing what is common to each image.Daniel Collins 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like the pix. I'm scouting around for diagrams, too, and have probably covered the same territory that you have. The copyright status of diagrams from state DNRs is murky. Surely, there's something out there from FEMA. By the way, since you're an authority on phosphorus transport, do you know of any research that links high concentrations of phophorus with a decline in freshwater mussel populations? Just curious. -- Cuppysfriend 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Creek again Although this is unquestionably a PD USGS image, I had to cheat a little to find it. Here's where: [1] -- Cuppysfriend 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructed article

Please look at my sandbox draft of a reconstructed version of this article at User:Cuppysfriend/sandbox. I've rearranged the text, added different, more descriptive pictures and a reference. It's still too focused on the U.S., but it might make a good foundation to build on. Most of the current changes are in the subsections of "Formation" and "Physical geography." Expansion of the description of the U.S. flood insurance program as a means of restricting floodplain development would be good. -- Cuppysfriend 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! (I was fearing re-writing the article.) Also, excellent array of images. The article's accreted enough material to trigger an avulsion to the new channel. Daniel Collins 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! (And, of course, open to further revision.) Kept older images and "globalise" template. -- Cuppysfriend 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little change

Deltas are aggradational but they're not described as floodplains as far as I know. Daniel Collins 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Maybe that's an artifact of the 1911 EB text. Deltas obviously have river channels and experience flooding. How should we recast that language? Meantime, I'll delete the Nile Delta image. Don't want to mislead anyone. -- Cuppysfriend 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep...that's from the 1911 EB, all right. Again, should we edit it or delete it? -- Cuppysfriend 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gray area. From my perspective it is more valuable to separate floodplains from deltas from alluvial fans. While all experience flows that overtop the main channels, where the water overtops may not be well described by a plain. I think of floodplains as constrained in some way, while deltas and alluvial fans are not. I'm not sure if there is a concrete official position. Daniel Collins 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Floodplain&oldid=89539631"