This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The other kind of flood control has a history going back thousands of years and is notable for having saved perhaps millions of lives and avoided trillions of dollars in property damage. --Ssbohio (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
01-Jan-2009: After waiting the entire year of 2008, no one opposed the proposed move, so I have moved the communication-protocol article to the new title "Flood control (communications)". After an analysis of Google-search hits, Google had listed 599 webpages about "flood control", but Wikipedia had the only webpage related to flooding in "communications" or "protocol"; the other 99.83% of webpages (598/599) were about water floods. Consequently, I moved the page and converted article "Flood control" to handle water flooding, the typical meaning in those 99.83% of matching webpages. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The Encarta link was taken down by Microsoft, and the WebCite link is active. However, the second page of the Encarta article was also taken down by Microsoft and the WebCite link points to the non existent page. Loved the first half though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think subject and reference belong. I plan to add heading "Natural Flood Control", link to a section of Beaver_dam, use your reference, and add a sentence on preserving healthy Riparian_areas unless you do first. Darrylh08 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Unsupported statements in the "Future" section
The "Future" section reads like a pamphlet issued by Global2000 or Greenpeace. I submit that the Seychelles, Vanuatu, and other low-lying islands still have not sunk into the rising seas, very likely because those seas have not been rising. I am loath to make that big a change on my own and look like a vandal; but perhaps I could have some opinions of editors with longer standing? Thanks!Felixkasza (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
At this moment, the "Future" section is an advertisement for Dutch flood control techniques - and I agree with Felix that it uses somewhat sensationalist language to stress the importance of flood control. Nevertheless, it has some good sources so we should not plainly delete the text. I will try and weed out some of the 'unencyclopedic' statements and see if there is any feedback. Pim Rijkee (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)