Jump to content

Talk:Flood management

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

Move to Flood control (communications)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Connection to Datenflusskontrolle (german)

[edit]

A data flow control is not the same as a "flood control". I deleted the link to the german text. I am german btw. --84.188.195.94 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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 192.25.142.225 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural flood control

[edit]

Methods of natural flood control, such as the use of beavers/beaver dams are not mentioned. See the research by Jan Nyssen, of the Ghent University, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-52CYKTD-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F13%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1732969156&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0d98d72eab0715057f47613e6bc5b6ae&searchtype=a

91.182.193.178 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unsupported statements in the "Future" section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Methods of detection

[edit]

A cleanup of the methods of detection section is needed, it doesn't sound coherent at all. Jubblubs (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger completed

[edit]

The merger of the content of the former "flood mitigation" article has now been completed. This is found under flood protection by level section. A redirect has been placed.Richarit (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-arranged things a bit. I think the section that was called "flood protection by level" works better as a section called "purposes". But I think we should have a new section on terminology where we could explain all the small nuanced differences between the terms flood control, mitigation, protection, management, relief. EMsmile (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but it was hard to find nuanced differences in definitions for each of these terms. They are mosly used interchangeablly I think. I looked at WMO and that led me to UNTERMS website where I found they are all lumped under one definition, apart from flood/risk managemnt which is quite different and has a separate WP page flood risk management Richarit (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's looking good. I've made some further edits to it. I tried to make it clearer where exactly on that UNTERMS website the info came from (using the URLs with the respective search terms) and also which sentences were copied (using quotation marks). Furthermore, I suggest that flood risk management is merged into here. I don't see the benefit of keeping that in a separate article. Let's discuss it on the talk page of flood risk management. EMsmile (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed further reading list

[edit]

I've removed the further reading list as it wasn't adding much value and was overly Global North centric. The important references should anyway by in the references list. This was the Further Reading list:

EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better image(s) for the lead

[edit]

I propose for the lead we show a 2x2 image collage to provide a visual impression of the different flood control options. We could show big infrastructure and also "soft options" (2 of each?); and 2 examples from the Global North, 2 from the Global South. What kind of images would be suitable? Perhaps:

  1. One image with a large dyke or dam
  2. One image with a sea wall structure
  3. One image with a wetland that is used for flood control
  4. And another soft option, which one? EMsmile (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue that I had brought up a year ago is still valid. The current image doesn't give a good visual clue on how flood management works. @TatjanaClimate: when you + colleagues did the review work of this article, did you have a think about the issue of image for the lead as well? EMsmile (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EMsmile thanks for this, I agree an image collage would be a good idea. I had a quick look for alternative images beyond flood control and there doesn't seem to be much in Commons. I would suggest using something that indicated "planning" - e.g.: the flood mapping image I added under the section Flood modelling. TatjanaClimate (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For much of the tropical world, Mangroves provide the most effective flood mitigation barriers against tidal flooding, although they are being rapidly lost to development - often tourist development. An image of Mangroves would also help balance the geographical spread across the montage. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move + terminology

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flood control → Flood management – A researcher has informed me that the terminology in this article around flood control and flood mitigation is incorrect. It's a confusing matter as these terms are often used interchangably, but they are in fact distinct. I'll be making some edits soon in an attempt to resolve this - apparently flood control is technically more about physical barriers to directly manage flood water while flood mitigation encompasses both flood control measures (physical barriers) as well as non-structural aspects like flood insurance, flood prediction, etc.

I proposed this article "Flood control" is moved to "Flood management" as a more general term which would encompass flood control and flood mitigation as well as flood risk management etc. (See also Wang et al., 2020). TatjanaClimate (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent editors on the page @EMsmile @Richarit for input before I action this. Thanks! TatjanaClimate (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am glad you are working on this article. Please note that one year ago, we merged "flood mitigation" into this article, see here on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flood_control#Merger_completed . If "flood management" is a better (and more overarching) title for this, I would be in favour of a name change. I don't have sufficient grasp of the literature though to really say one way or another. I hope User:Richarit will comment as well. EMsmile (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your insights! I do think (and researcher agrees) that Flood Management would be a better title. I have been prepping some content edits that I will make soon that are in line with this too. TatjanaClimate (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that Flood management is a better, all encompassing term and one that is used by relevant public bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, to give just two examples.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile, Richarit, TatjanaClimate, and Velella: I have converted this conversation into a formal move request. Feel free to convert your comments into a Support or Oppose vote if you wish. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ahecht. I'm a
Support TatjanaClimate (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. EMsmile (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting so that this will start at the top of the queue at WP:RM/CD rather than the backlog. SilverLocust 💬 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above, since the broader term seems more in line with the scope of the article. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per earlier comment as a more encompassing term for the subject.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article has always been about flood "control". If the scope is to be changed, then flood mitigation can be restored and moved to "flood management" (or just kept at that name). This, however, is not the article to move, given that flood control and its systems are an independently notable sub-topic. You are suggesting a move but what you really want is to undo a merge that was made previously. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your insights @Zxcvbnm, you make a valid point. Flood control is an independently notable sub-topic. Moving forward, I think it is important to consider how we can present information on flood management and related sub-topics in an accessible manner for Wikipedia readers. I think a suite of Wikipedia pages (e.g.: Flood control, flood mitigation, flood management, flood risk management) would be too confusing, especially as these terms often overlap. It might be better to have one page (Flood management) as the umbrella term under which these can be discussed. I refer to WP:PAGEDECIDE. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Ahecht, conversation seems to have died down and the discussion has been live for over 2 weeks. Could we go ahead with next steps? TatjanaClimate (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2024 (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.

Suggestions for some to-dos

[edit]

If someone who previously worked on this article (when carrying out the merger) still has time, could you perhaps tackle these to-dos?:

  • I think we need to make the lead into a better and longer summary of the article. I think we should aim for around 450 words. Current lead length is only 247 words.
  • I think we need a bit more content about the non-structural methods. I've just added a link to nature-based solutions. *We could probably copy some content and refs across from that article as it talks a fair bit about flood control with nature-based solutions.
  • We could find a better image for the lead (see also my suggestion above about a 2x2 collage)

Sorry that I don't have the time nor expertise myself to work on this at the moment. EMsmile (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flood_management&oldid=1251650397"