Talk:2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods

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

Scope of article[edit]

As the same weather event was responsible for flooding in Wales, Perth and Kinross in Scotland and, Cork, Kerry and Galway in the Republic of Ireland, should this article not be widened to include those areas also? Skinsmoke (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, although I was really hoping someone would start a separate article on the Ireland floods. November 2009 United Kingdom and Ireland floods anyone? Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I also started working on merging this with the floods and gales that affected southern Britain last week. I think having one article for all the storms is better. Jolly Ω Janner 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be renamed to 2009 British Isles floods, given the impact they had across the islands, including the Isle of Man. GB doesn't include the Isle of Man. Mister Flash (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it was clear from the geographical context that the Isle of Man would fall in the area described. For political reasons, it is better at the current title, Ireland referring to the island and not the republic. Please feel free to add in any info about how the IoM was affected by the event. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, political reasons don't come into it. This is a an article about geography. Wikipedia does not pander to politics and nationalism; it states it as it is - apparently. Mister Flash (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put my tuppence in here and suggest that as the correct form of address for the country stated as "The Republic of Ireland" is actually "Ireland" in official texts (refer to Wikipedia itself for clarification of this) that the erroneous "Republic of Ireland" references be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.93.1.239 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally correct, to achieve that a pipe link needs to be used. [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. "Ireland" refers to the island divided into 32 counties, six of which form Northern Ireland and the remainder form the Republic. Let's try to keep the political dispute out of a geographical article as far as possible please.
I have added purely separative 'Ireland' and 'Great Britain', as Ireland, although very severely affected, seemed to get lost. This will also encourage greater expansion and information added to the section. It does not mention in any way 'Republic of' and therefore cannot be considered 'political'. Vivara (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Northern Ireland should you include the counties affected as well? Because Northern Ireland is not one big county The C of E (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man was affected as well. The title should be British Isles flooding though this term would no doubt offend someone!  Francium12  20:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference dates[edit]

Currently reference dates are in two different formats. As the ISO format does not now autoformat for user preferences, can we please agree on using day-month-year as the standard presentation of dates. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't use the ISO format, as that's a Wikipedia-wide way of doing references, but if you'd like to change it to British format then I'll support that. On a seperate note about referencing, the external links section should be removed and their "links" used instead as references. Jolly Ω Janner 12:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roads[edit]

Needs referenced and added:

In Ireland, the main N6 Dublin-Galway road was closed at Ballinasloe and Craughwell, with traffic diverted to Gort on the N18 Limerick-Galway road, which itself was flooded at Gort and Labane, with a stop-go single lane. Bus services were suspended, although bus transfers were still used for suspended rail services (although with delays of hours). Secondary roads out of Galway and in the Midlands were flooded, as were regional and local roads. Roads in/out of Athenry were closed. The N4 was closed for a time near Carrick-on-Shannon. The N71 through West Cork was impassable at times in Innishannon, Skibbereen and Clonakilty. All roads in/out of Ennis were closed apart from two or three roads. The N85 in Co. Clare was diverted at Inagh.

The unfinished M6 between Ballinasloe and Galway had single lanes opened on two sections on Friday to allow for Dublin-Galway traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.128.232 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More areas affected[edit]

Some pictures here show County Leitrim and County Longford are affected. Is anyone able to add these to the map? --candle•wicke 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In Athlone, Co Westmeath, an elderly lady living at Leinster Terrace also had her house flooded. In Co Roscommon, the county council used a hoist to rescue a trapped driver after his lorry broke down in floods under a bridge." Please also add County Roscommon and County Westmeath. --candle•wicke 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:AxG created the map, best ask him. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the case. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges destroyed[edit]

It is reported that seven bridges have been destroyed so far. I've managed to track down useable photos of two of them from Geograph. It is likely that photos of the other two are also available from that source. Does anyone know which bridges they were? For instruction on using Geograph photos see my user page. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Engineers survey the scene after a bridge over the River Derwent collapsed suddenly after heavy rainfall and flooding in Workington, England. --candle•wicke 05:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The destroyed bridges.

Bridge Location Photo
Northside Bridge Workington
Southwaite Footbridge (aka Navvies Bridge) Workington
Lorton Bridge Cockermouth
Camerton Footbridge Camerton This one?
Camerton Bridge Camerton This one
Newlands Beck Bridge Braithwaite
footbridge ?Pooley Mill Footbridge Dalemain This one?
Calva Bridge (condemned as a result of damage sustained) Workington
Dock Bridge (severely damaged) Workington

In time, these could form a sub-section in the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge names given by Cumbria CC (via BBC map [1] ) are: Collapsed Bridges: 1. Northside Bridge, Workington 2. Navvies Footbridge, Workington 3. Camerton Footbridge, Camerton 4. Memorial Gardens footbridge, Cockermouth 5. Low Lorton Bridge 6. Little Braithwaite Bridge 7. Camerton Church Bridge, Camerton.

Worth extending this section and checking names/locations plus clarify order - such as upstream to downstream. --mervyn (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

See also: Commons:File talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods map.svg

Is it possible to replace the map with one with current county boundries. Yorkshire should be divided up into its four current counties which are completely unrelated. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many small, non-ceremonial counties. It would be a very uneccesarily precise map. Jolly Ω Janner 23:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is on one 'Yorkshire' in the article, it does not say whether it is North, East, South or West. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 00:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshire should certainly be split into N, E, S & W. Qpm (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Sheffeld affected, so South Yorkshire. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the red colour to the County of Cork (the southern most, large county in Ireland), as it was affected by gale force winds. Thanks, Vivara (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the article that Suffolk is affected; could someone amend the map to reflect that. Qpm (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be in time. At the moment we're working on getting the right colour coding. As Essex and Suffolk were not flooded, but affected by tornados. Jolly Ω Janner 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yorkshire split with South Yorkshire in blue, Northern Ireland split into Districts and Co. Cork now red, Suffolk now orange. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone colour West Yorkshire in as the Calder Valley was effected greatly by the flood, Todmorden High School was closed. thankyou --Lemonade100 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Sussex needs a blue. Anglesey and Co Dublin need an orange. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming ridiculous. This article is about 'floods' not strong winds. The whole orange colour should be removed unless we want to change the title of the article to 'weather conditions'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivara (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush. The article is quite dynamic at the moment because the event is current. At the moment it is better to get the info down, and referenced. In a few weeks, a rewrite can be undertaken, and the scope of the article refined/extended as necessary. Things like titles etc are minor at this point. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, the map is protected, so only sysops can update it. Jolly Ω Janner 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typical, I'm a sysop, but I wouldn't have a clue how to alter the map. :-/ Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Download this, save it somewhere you can remember, upload it here. Jolly Ω Janner 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
County Sligo? It was a while ago but it was flooded in November 2009. --candle•wicke 02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jolly Ω Janner 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs updating to show the death in Powys. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dyfed-Powys Police are continuing to investigate the full circumstances surrounding why the woman went into the river." doesn't mean it was the weather that killed her. She might have been commiting suicide for all we know. The article also mentions "Meanwhile, an 85-year-old woman has been found dead in the River Severn at Newtown, Powys.", although we don't know the full circumstances of this as well. Jolly Ω Janner 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article[edit]

This may seem to be a minor and petty point, but "Great Britain and Ireland" is a little unwieldy, and also technically inaccurate - "Great Britain" is the one largest island, so the Isle of Man, which has been affected by the flooding, is not part of it. I think that it would be less clumsy just to use "British Isles" in the title instead of "Great Britain and Ireland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.250.115 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a trade off here between geographical accuracy, the term British Isles is the correct geographical descriptor for this article, and not offending Irish nationalists who object to the term British Isles on the grounds that not everything covered by the term is in fact British.  Francium12  13:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objectors would include most people in the Republic of Ireland, rather than just Irish nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.128.232 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In ways, yes, it is a minor and petty point. As in, no, 'Great Britain and Ireland' is not clumsy and a little unwieldy. Even if it is, you yourself said 'little'. In other ways, its a major point. The people of Ireland — no not staunch nationalists, just the general population — feel that Ireland should certainly not be included in the 'British' isles. If you think about it, there is nothing 'British' about the Republic of Ireland which covers the majority of land on the island. Calling it the 'British' isles makes little or no sense. I ask you to prove me wrong. Plus, the fairer and unbiased terms: 'Great Britain and Ireland' and 'British Isles and Ireland' are becoming increasingly more common. Thanks, Ed (Vivara (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Following an IP editor's redirection of the article to Penis, I've temporarily semi-protected the move feature. I'm hoping that it will not be necessary to prevent IPs from editing the article, as the majority of IP edits have been useful so far. As I stated earlier, the final title of the article can be sorted out once the event is over. While this is an ITN article, the current title should be maintained. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "Great Britain and Ireland" is that it is inaccurate to describe the area this flood covered! British Isles and Ireland would be accurate but liable to confuse and it is hardly in common usage. To express my own bias openly I am more concerned with geographical accuracy but then I see British Isles as a value-free geographical descriptor. None of the alternatives described at British Isles naming dispute or British Isles (terminology) roll off the tounge!  Francium12  23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On account of the Isle of Man problem I support rename to "November 2009 British Isles floods". While we should not go out of our way to offend, accuracy is what counts. Greenshed (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "British and Irish" do the trick? The Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain (or indeed the UK) but it is British. For what it's worth, I also think "flooding" would look better than the existing "floods", though I don't have strong feelings about that. Loganberry (Talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loganberry, the Manx people will be calling for your head. They are rightly fiercely independant, and would not consider themselves British in any way. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the Manx government website: "The Isle of Man is an internally self-governing dependency of the British Crown and its people are British citizens." Also see page 42 of [www.tynwald.org.im/papers/hansards/2003-2004/kh06042004.pdf this House of Keys debate] from 2004. Richard Corkill, at that time the Chief Minister, states unequivocally: "We are British." Loganberry (Talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Flooding in Great Britain and Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)FWIW, this is a good example of where using the term "British Isles" makes perfect sense as a geographic term. I suggest the article points out that it encompasses several different administrative and sovereign regions. --HighKing (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title to November 2009 British Isles floods would be best as that geographic term definitely includes all of the area affected. The article British Isles includes the political and administrative details for anyone who wants to read about that, thereby negating any need to explain the use of the term in the article. The politics of the term are not really relevant; this is not a political article, it is only about the weather and the damage and difficulties cased by it. Qpm (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copy/paste of discussion from WP:ERRORS[edit]

Continued flooding affecting Great Britain and Ireland (affected areas pictured) results in two deaths.

The flooding is affecting the British Isles as a whole and not just the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The Isle of Man, for example, is highlighted in the very picture mentioned. The overly specific, and incorrect, "Great Britain and Ireland" should be replaced by the correct, all encompassing "British Isles". siarach (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles" would exclude the Republic of Ireland, which is not British (on account of it being Irish). Bradley0110 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles states that it includes both Great Britian (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) as well as Ireland (including both Northern Ireland and the Republic) – in particular: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland". The article does note that there are objections to the word "Britain" encompassing the Irish part, but provided that the British Isles is the official name, we should adhere to the official name.

I agree that the article name would be best renamed to "British Isles" which, as previously discussed, is both more concise and more accurate. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that would be a good idea - suggest you look at Terminology of the British Isles and British Isles naming dispute. There is no "official name". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no official Wikipedia policy on when if ever "British Isles" may be used. What tends to happen is that Irish editors object on an ad-hoc basis and it gets changed. A single agreed policy would be more efficient. jnestorius(talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These issues are discussed at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples - although in this case it may be difficult to get a speedy response there, it would still be worth a try. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think 'British Isles' would be fine, but if there are concerns how about 'United Kingdom and Ireland'? The problem stems from the use of Great Britain. Modest Genius talk 19:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom - Dumelow (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, good point. Modest Genius talk 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my view is that, in these circumstances, the term "British Isles" has some merit as a geographical term. In this instance, a contributing factor is that the Isle of Man is specifically mentioned, and clearly that island is not part of either Great Britain or Ireland. However, my view is that normally the term "British Isles" should be discouraged, and many editors would take the view that it should not be used in this case either. But I'm not sure what alternative they would suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a discussion at Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. British Islands and Ireland (here I refer to ROI not the island of Ireland) would be the most politically neutral term...but it isn't exactly the most commonly used one! As I have expressed on the talk page British Isles is the only appropriate geographical descriptor for the area of the flood covers.  Francium12  01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"British Islands" is a legal term with a very specific meaning, and I don't think it should be used as a geographical description in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this elsewhere, but will repeat it here. I think it is clear from the geographical context that the Isle of Man would be included in "Great Britain and Ireland", where both names refer to the Islands and not the countries. As we are dealing with a geographical article, politics really should be kept out of it. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest British Isles is the correct terminology. We are not here be "politically correct" or to placate the minority (and it is a minority) in Ireland who object to British Isles. British Isles is geogrphically accurate for the topic under discussion. The Isle of Man is definitely not included in "Great Britain and Ireland". British Islands is a legal term and British Isles and Ireland is wrong. LevenBoy (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I agree. BTW, it's amusing that many British editors disclaim "British Islands" as a mere legal term, yet don't see the irony in continuing to use "Republic of Ireland" (which is also a British legal name, and an Irish legal description, but not the actual name of the country). --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that that use of "many" doesn't apply to me - I didn't support the continuing use of "RoI". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there is a need to differentiate between Ireland (an island divided into 32 counties) and Ireland (a country containing 26 counties, located on the island of Ireland), which is why RoI gets used for the country. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but why have the main article at that title? That's just wrong. But I'm really making the point that just because "British Islands" is used in legislation doesn't mean it isn't also used as a collective noun for the UK and crown dependencies. Trying to invalidate it's usage on the grounds that it is a legal term is also wrong (and for some, a little two-faced). --HighKing (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that people in the majority part of Ireland (the Republic) do not like the term "British Isles". It irritates us, because it's rude and factually wrong after nearly a century of independence from tbe UK. It's an obsolete term, like calling the Benelux countries "the Spanish Netherlands".

Northern Ireland is in the UK. For some folk in NI, like LevenBoy, "British Isles" fits their sense of identity. As free people, they are welcome to call the islands what they like. However, objections are rationally based, not a minority view nor playing politics. So, I'm afraid use of the term in Wikipedia will continue to cause objections. Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with "British and Irish flooding". Although the Isle of Man is not part of the UK it is British. See this House of Keys debate from 2004 in which Richard Corkill MHK, at that time Chief Minister, states "We are British." Loganberry (Talk) 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no clear answer to this question. I support either 'British and Irish flooding, or just 'flooding in the United Kingdom and Ireland'. I didn't know that the Isle of Man wasn't part of the UK, I'm afraid, but it seems to be a highly technical objection to anyone not deeply familiar to the subject (though we should strive to be accurate if possible). --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a geographic entry, so the purely geographic name for the archipelago, which in English is 'British Isles', is clearly the correct one to use. Suggesting that this somehow implies that Ireland is a part of the UK make no more sense than saying that the geographic term North America somehow implies Canada is part of the US, or that the geographic term Europe implies that Switzerland is part of the EU. British Isles is a neutral geographic term which implies nothing about the political status of the islands. Unfortunately, some seem to be inferring a meaning which is not actually present. The alternative suggestion of 'British and Irish flooding' doesn't work either, since it falsely imbues the floods with nationality. Modest Genius talk 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please continue discussion here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modest Genius: you complain that "British and Irish flooding" as a name doesn't work because it "falsely imbues the floods with nationality"? So what, frankly? The BBC sees no problem with the likes of "Australian bushfires". Nobody is going to read "British and Irish flooding" and think that the floodwaters had somehow come to life! Personally I would prefer "British Isles" to remain as a strictly geographical term until and unless a replacement term emerges that is both widely accepted and widely used - and I think everyone agrees that no qualifying term currently exists. Personally I don't associate the word "British" in the term with the idea of British ownership at all, and don't think most people in the UK do either. However, it's been made pretty clear that the term does irritate people in Ireland - I actually think they're wrong to take offence, but I'm not Irish. Thus, "British and Irish" seems the least worst way out, especially as it allows those in Northern Ireland to choose which one they want to be! Loganberry (Talk) 18:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a real overwhelming problem with the current name to justify a rename. The only issue with the current name is that it doesn't mention the Isle of Man but considering the only specific mention of the island is one sentence about power cuts, I don't think it is a significant enough subject of the article to force a rename. I can't see any advantages of "British and Irish" over the current name. Adambro (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the term 'Great Britain', in its geographical sense, also excludes all the outlying islands, from Anglesey to Wight, many of which have been affected. Re Loganberry, you may have a point on the widespread use of such grammatical constructs, but they still sound somehow wrong to my ear. Modest Genius talk 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point regarding "Great Britain". In which case, I would agree with a good number of earlier comments suggesting the article be renamed to "November 2009 British Isles floods" or similar since British Isles, in a strictly geographical sense, encompasses all the relevent areas. Adambro (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to 'November 2009 British Isles floods'. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of the term 'British Isles' being considered offensive, there are many widely accepted geographic terms that certain groups of people find objectionable due to historical reasons. For example, many Koreans object to the use of South Korea as opposed to Korea; many also object to the western label Sea of Japan, which Koreans call the East Sea. The fact is British Isles is a term acceptable and widely used by many neutral observers without any intended offence. We have an article of that name (which acknowledges the terms controversy).
On the subject of 'Great Britain', my preference would be to use the term 'United Kingdom' to refer to the country. It doesn't seem to me that saying 'Great Britain' gives any advantages, as evidenced by this discussion. Most people outside the UK assume that Great Britain and the UK are interchangeable terms. Neither term appears to be 100.00 % appropriate, but at least the UK is the official name of the country. The use of 'Great Britain' only for its geographic sense is a nuance many outsiders would not appreciate.
As an encyclopedia, if there is a choice between being accurate and being offensive, I think we should opt for the former. If 'British Isles' is the only term that is accurate, I suggest we use it. That said, saying 'British and Irish floods' seems good enough to me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This same issue was already discussed at Talk:February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall.
It seems to have been forgotten about. ~Asarlaí 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man[edit]

On the Isle of Man, there were power cuts in Ballaragh and Laxey but Manx Electricity restored power to all affected properties by the afternoon.ref BBC Newsref

The article is not November 2009...Storms it is November 2009...Floods. The source states The winds also caused a power cut in Laxey - was there any notable flooding on IofM? Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about flooding yet. There is further bad weather forecast for this week. A possibility is to rename floods to storms, which would cover the situation better. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole premise of this renaming debate is that there was flooding in IoM. If no one is sure, why are we having a renaming debate? Is it really for the sake of accuracy? Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High winds as well as floods[edit]

As gale force winds have also caused a great deal of damage at the same time as the floods, and as part of the same weather event during the same month, the last word of the article title should be changed to storms. Some counties were affected by wind, but not floods. Qpm (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is one occassion when the ambiguaty of "storm" has its advantages. Jolly Ω Janner 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'e been thinking about that too. I'd support changing "floods" to "storms". Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tense issues[edit]

I think that while the incident is still going on, we should refrain from using past tense for consistency's sake. --Frankjohnson123 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should use past tense as soon as practicable. Use future tense where appropriate, this can be converted to past tense after the predicted event happens. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amend map to include County Limerick[edit]

The flood waters up the River Shannon, have now, unsurprisingly, reached Limerick. Could the map be updated to reflect flooding resulting in road closures in County Limerick this afternoon (news link). Further flooding in the Limerick area is likely as the ESB release flood waters from Ardnacrusha (news link). zoney ♣ talk 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Lothian crash[edit]

As a result of the bad weather on November 21, two women died after the car they were travelling in veered off road and hit a tree. Shouldn't these individuals be mentioned somewhere in the article, or is this too indirect to become part of the overall death toll.[2] Stevvvv4444 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People die in road crashes every day, so this incident is not notable enough to mention. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include it. I also saw that four teenagers died in Birmingham. The police said that the weather conditions were a factor, but obviousl not the decisive factor. I think the death of the cannoeist should be included, because the weather i.e. the bulge in the River Dart was a much greater factor in the risk of dying on the river. Jolly Ω Janner 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports[edit]

Naas inspects but Wexford cancelled. --candle•wicke 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future development of the article[edit]

The immediate event seems to be over. Now we need to decide how the article is to develop over the coming weeks. I suggest that we may need an "Aftermath" section. This could cover the clean-up, Workington North station, the temporary and permanent replacement bridges in Cumbria. As suggested above, the article could be renamed and moved to November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland storms, which better describes the events in the southwest and southeast of England. The tornado in Derbyshire probably deserves a mention too. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the claim that this is over. Why is the article in the past tense? --candle•wicke 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Converted opening two sentences to present tense. --candle•wicke 14:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
Awarded to all editors of the November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods article, for showing great teamwork in expanding and correcting the article during the time it was on the Main Page as an In The News item. Well done all! Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add the above barnstar to your User (sub)page if you worked on the article in the period 20-25 November. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Stupid[edit]

This article has been added at least twice by IPs and later reverted. I agree with the removal. A fictional film has nothing to do with a real event, and therefore should not be linked. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Offaly[edit]

Can now be added to the map please. Source "Mr Cowen briefly visited the Parnell Square estate on the western bank of the river Shannon as part of a half-day tour of flood-hit areas in Offaly, Galway, Roscommon and Westmeath". --candle•wicke 14:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Mayo[edit]

Seems to have been reported flooded for several days now. Source "Farmers in Co Mayo are reporting severe flooding of farmland between Foxford and Ballina." --candle•wicke 15:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Airport[edit]

Hit by strong winds this week causing several flights to be diverted to Shannon and Manchester. Irish Independent The Irish Times --candle•wicke 16:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more[edit]

Waterlogging in Naas and Wexford so that's County Kildare and County Wexford too... --candle•wicke 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding in Dublin[edit]

RTÉ are now reporting "the River Liffey has burst its banks at the Strawberry beds in Lucan". More flooding in Kildare as well... --candle•wicke 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still more[edit]

Yorkshire got a drenching over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

The train service linking the two halfs of Workington has started, seen it on news this morning, but cannot get source. Would anyone like to help? --milesaaway (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no rush. Wait until the construction has happened and then more reliable sources will report on it, making our lives much easier. Jolly Ω Janner 16:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods → 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods — This has been continually going on to the end of the month and likely not to end until the start of December. Therefore as it is not just November there is no need for that part of the name. Simply south (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Simply south (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support because this year has not ended yet and more floods could come to the UK/Ireland in the next month, therefore if more floods do happen in December they can be mentioned in this article instead of having two seperate articles for November and December 2009. Plus, 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods sounds better. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SS & gregson. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's still only the 2nd of December, so this seems a little premature. As noted below, the proposed title would be inclusive of the whole calendar year, while the article is specifically about the flooding which has occured within the last few weeks. I've not been following the news too closely so I'm not sure to what extent this is still an ongoing event, but the article itself does not yet have any coverage beyond November, and it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any significant continuation of this into December. We can make a more informed decision about this further down the line, but as it stands right now, the current title is still the most accurate. Small-town hero (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are still flood warnings in place.  Cargoking  talk  13:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The most notable U.K. flood of the year, and certainly lasting well into December. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

I'm going to wait until December to make my decission and I would advise other users to do the same. Jolly Ω Janner 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Theres already been a few flooding events this year in the UK with Hurricanes Bill and TS Grace affecting the country this year and the flooding after the snow in February, so if we moved it to the above title would those flooding events be included? Jason Rees (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. The flooding from the the thaw should be covered in Feb 09 article. Perhaps the title Autumn might be better, although some consider winter starting on 1 December (the Met Office is one of them unfortunately). Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above, if we move to that title then the implication is that we covert the whole of 2009. Autumn 2009 is much more accurate, but I was wondering whether the article should be storms rather than floods - Autumn 2009 Great Britain and Ireland storms? Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Autumn" is a bit ambiguous and as noted we're arguably into winter now. Despite my opposition above, I'm open to alternative suggestions. November–December 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (bit of a mouthful), or Late 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods? And perhaps replace "floods" with "storms" as suggested. Small-town hero (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking "Late" should be used instead. To further back the move up there are more reports of floods e.g. flooding in York and with the topic below on the flooding to occur in Cork. Simply south (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Winter does not start until 21 December in my book. Let's keep the seasons in their correct place. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flood warning issued for Cork city[edit]

Probably should start swimming now if you're in Cork... --candle•wicke 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And still... --candle•wicke 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Day 3... --candle•wicke 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

Does anyone think this should go up for GA?  Cargoking  talk  13:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still in development. Jolly Ω Janner 13:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon for GA. Give it a few months. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to wait until the article stabilises after the event before a GA nomination. Other wise it would probably fail on "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." Keith D (talk)

'Effects of Global Warming'[edit]

Not wishing to enter the MMGW debate, because time alone will tell, but it's monotonously inevitable that somebody will plaster any article to do with unusual weather with this type of link. If over a decade of static temperatures are not admissible as evidence against MMGW, then not even the most avid disciple of MMGW would claim that one day's exceptional downpour in a notoriously wet part of the UK is automatic evidence for it. It's an encyclopedia...not a part of the MMGW propoganda machine. I live in Cumbria, and its not warm now...I can tell you :-) 193.109.254.19 (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I added it, I wasn't trying to say that this event was an effect of global warming. I put the link there, because I thought that readers of this article might also want to learn about the effects of global warming and I couldn't find anywhere within the article to link it. Jolly Ω Janner 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am not arrogant enough to just go deleting links etc, but MMGW is hardly an obscure subject that you would have to hunt around for...it's everywhere you look. The BBC News couldn't read out a bus ticket without talking about the effect that the bus ticket paper industry is having on MMGW :-) We have a small river with a colossal catchment area flowing between walls through a town. A freak weather event was bound to happen eventually, and I feel that the good people of Cockermouth are very lucky that their town didn't go the same way as Boscastle.194.106.220.83 (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a couple of content forks[edit]

I am proposing the merger of two content forks which have resulted from this article: Barker Crossing and Bill Barker (police officer). I don't think either of these separate articles are currently justified on their own notability, given the fact that they both are intrinsically tied to this article. If not merged, I can see one or both eventually being put up for deletion with the passage of time.

It is better to centralise the relevant sources and content now in one place, rather than spreading it across multiple locations, creating duplication at best, and out of date or contradictory content at worst. As separate articles, infoboxes and short sections are nice, but they really don't actually add anything to the actual substance of the content, and the actual information could easily be contained here in its entirety without any losses.

For clarity, please vote and discuss each merge in the dedicated sections below, in #Merge Barker Crossing (December 2009) and #Merge PC Barker (December 2009)

MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is opinion that these are not content forks: see below. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I aready said, "discuss each merge in the dedicated sections below" MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Barker Crossing (December 2009)[edit]

Result was that Barker Crossing should remain a stand alone article. Discussion closed by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey (Barker Crossing)[edit]

  • Merge as proposer. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the article doesn't add much more information than what it would in this article. Other than mentioning the name of the regiment who built it etc, which isn't terrificaly encyclopediac. Jolly Ω Janner 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the reasons given above. Subject can be appropriately covered within this article. Adambro (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone. In a merge it would likely be snipped down to a short stub. To people in Britain PC Barker is plenty noteworthy. And it would serve as an example of how a bridge is built in a hurry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does PC Barker have to do with this article? Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable structure - Bridge will have significance after the flood event. --Mervyn (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods is and article about an event, albeit a very large event. Barker Crossing is an article about a geographical structure. The details of a (semi-permanent) bridge do not belong in an article about an event. Whilst the bridge has been built as a result of the flood damage, it is still a separate entity to the event, and could be in place for decades to come. I would also compare this with Workington North railway station (yes WP:Other Stuff Exists), which as a mainline railway station would never be merged with an article about an event, or another railway station. Barker Crossing is of the same importance as the railway station. Martin451 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Barker crossing is now an independent entty. It was built from pre-fabricated parts, but there are no plans to demolish it (AFAIK) so is not necessarily temporary. Hallucegenia (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The subject of the article has sufficient notablility to sustain a stand-alone article. It should not be merged into this article. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and seeing 3:7 score get bold and remove the merger. Time spent on merging this article could be redirected into expanding it :-) Materialscientist (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Barker Crossing)[edit]

  • I wouldn't use Wokington North station as a comparison, as far as I know we have no precedent for temporary station articles in the same way as permanent ones (although I could be wrong). There is i.m.o no real reason why that could not be merged with the permanent station article either. And more to the point, I would have thought Barker Crossing is the first ever Wikipedia article on a temporary footbridge (although again, could be wrong). Anyway, these are the real considerations, if Other Stuff is to be invoked (which it can be, as long as there is a stable and established precedent). MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as temporary bridges go, this one is quite notable (it's also pretty impressive). David Trochos (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were both created by the same user, an IP, way back in 2005, and as such, it is probably no coincidence they are both bridges in Toronto. They are both orphans, that hardly anybody but bots or gnomes have editted. And they contain zero references or any assertion of notability whatsoever. Given those facts, these two articles do not represent anything like a precedent for inclusion of separate articles on temporary footbridges on Wikipedia. What are the others you are thinking of? MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Carrick-a-Rede Rope Bridge which could never be considered a permanent bridge. You are also arguing that Barker Crossing is temporary. Considering the longevity of Bailey bridges and Mabey bridges, this bridge is likely to be in use for decades, and it would not be the first military bridge to be used for that long in this county. Also I think that for its coverage, even if it was temporary it would still be notable. Martin451 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge PC Barker (December 2009)[edit]

Survey (PC Barker)[edit]

Result was that the article was merged into another article per this AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Merge as proposer. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge same reason as above that I put. Extra information like his collar number really don't belong in Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Bill Barker has received substantial coverage in the media. I feel that he does have sufficient notability to warrant his own article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. Barker isn't notable independently of the 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods so the subject can be appropriately covered in this article. Adambro (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone. In a merge it would likely be snipped down to a short stub. To people in Britain PC Barker is plenty noteworthy. More noteworthy than some of the pop music singers that get reams of coverage in Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Although Barker is not notable outside of a single event, he has received significant coverage, there has been significant news coverage of him. Also a bridge has been named after him, one of the two river crossings of a town of 24,000 people, which asserts his notability. Martin451 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not the question. Notability of a subject doesn't mean we must have a standalone article about it, rather that the subject probably meets the requirements to do so. It is still up to us to decide how best to cover a subject in the context of other article we have about related subjects. Adambro (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is the question. The proposer has suggested merging as he believes Barker does not have notability in his own right. There are no other arguments for merger above, as all other Merge !votes do not add relevant discussion. Having a bridge posthumously named after yourself, and significant press coverage of this level, is in my opinion enough for a wikipedia article. With regard to out of date contradictory content, this should be fixed, not deleted. Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability hasn't been disputed, the appropriateness of a standalone article has, and that isn't simply a question of notability, we also need to consider how articles fit with other articles we have on similar topics. My suggestion is that the subject of Barker can be adequately covered in this article. That isn't because I don't think he is notable. That is because I think it is simply a better way of dealing with the topic for a number of reasons but primarily because his notability is only in connection with this event and it is unlikely much more is going to emerge about him that would make the information about him in this article too weighty in relation to other aspects of this event. Having a bridge named after him and significant coverage establishes notability, it doesn't establish a requirement for a standalone article. What I'd ask you to consider is why couldn't this subject be covered within this article? Adambro (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge PC Barker has now been the subject of enough independent reports to justify his own page. Hallucegenia (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reports establish notability. They don't mean it is necessarily appropriate to have a standalone article about this individual. Have you considered the suggestions that the subject could be appropriately covered within this article? Adambro (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see response below Hallucegenia (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (PC Barker)[edit]

  • We need to think about where information on things and people belong. We have very little information on the PC Barker article and I cant' see it getting expanded in the future. Whether he is notable or not has little relevence. If we only have a small article on him, then it defeats the point in a seperate article. Jolly Ω Janner 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a cue from BLP1E, I don't think anyone would support the creation of an article titled Drowning of Bill Barker in the same way as for example Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky is justified - that is i.m.o how standalone notability should be viewed in this case, and whether it can or can not be justified separately to the flood. All of the significant press coverage to create the PC Barker article has come from that one event. If he received a posthumous medal down the line, or a significant memorial or other in memorium quality other than a temporary footbridge, then maybe he would warrant an article outside of this one, but on the question of the bar of notability for civilian medals certainly, I have no clue. I know you have to be female for a Military Cross to justify your own article, and that is no small award. And Superintendent Gerald Irving Richardson for example was awarded the George Cross. That is where I am tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Have you considered the suggestions that the subject could be appropriately covered within this article?" Yes I have. The suggested host article is too broad and diverse. IF the proposal were to merge with, say, 2009 Workington Flood then that would be a different matter. As it stands, I think that this would get lost in sub-section 2.3.1 "Great Britiain, 18-25 November" of what has become a unwieldy monster of a catch-all article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallucegenia (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this article is currently large and could be split into sub-articles, is not really an argument that Bill Barker is independently notable. You are quite correct, both Bill Barker and Barker crossing could easily be merged with the relevant parts of this article, to create 2009 Wokington floods. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The question here is whether the content about him should be presented in its own article, or whether it should be presented in 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. That is a question about how we structure the material. In my opinion (FWIW) neither of the proposed outcomes is ideal. Hallucegenia (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. New articles are not, and never can be, justified only on size grounds, they always have to have a clear reason for being considered separately notable from any obviously related content. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this?[edit]

Is it time to close this discussion. There are four in favour of the merge and four against, so basically no consensus to merge. I can't close this myself as I've voted. Mjroots (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close it and move on. The more important job is to fix the article itself. As I write, the infobox says the event is still ongoing. I would fix it myself, but I can't work out from the article what date it is supposed to have finished. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to closing, but as I haven't seen any arguments against mergeing in either discussion that wouldn't be thrown out of an actual afd, I do intend to nominate at least one, probably both articles for deletion, at some point in the future. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating the articles for deletion is your perogative, MickMacNee. The community will decide on the merits of the deletion argument as to whether or not the article should be kept. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too have voted here, but then Materialscientist voted in the discussion above. It seems to me that the consensus is inconclusive, so the result is to leave things as they are. Unless anyone objects, I shall close and archive this discussion shortly. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put both up for deletion, so it's moot now. MickMacNee (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallucegenia, do not close this discussion yourself, you are more than involved. I have reverted [3] your closure. MickMacNee (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this AfD debate, the Bill Barker article was merged into the Barker Crossing article. As such, the above discussion is now closed. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be the article that covers Workington North railway station. It worked fine when accessed by use of the search facility, but now shows as a subscription required site. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

I think it may be a good idea to rename this article since they was strong winds as well as flooding indicated by the map and also since this article mentions a report of tornado it could be renamed to something like 2009 Great Britain and Ireland Severe Weather. --109.78.56.3 (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection[edit]

I used the wrong summary when protecting, article has been protected for 3 days due to IP vandalism. I hope this won't inconvenience any IPs who want to make constructive edits in the next few days. If you have a constructive suggestion, add it here and use the {{editprotected}} template to flag the suggestion up for a decision. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://richteasellphotography.shutterfly.com/workingtonfloods
    Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://richteasellphotography.shutterfly.com/workingtonfloods
    Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods&oldid=1196544335"