Talk:2013–14 United Kingdom winter floods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wider Scope[edit]

This article could be widened out to a name along the lines of 2013-2014 Atlantic winter storms in Europe to include storm "Bernd", "Dirk", "Erich" and "Xaver" in December, and also the effects in Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal, Channel Islands, Isle of Man.Lacunae (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's huge, should we have 2 interlinked pages, 1 UK and Ireland and 1 for the EU?The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, it unfortunately looks unlikely that the storms and their aftermath cannot be kept in the same article, with half the article being broadly chronological and the other regional. Perhaps it would be better to split into 2013-2014 Atlantic winter storms in Europe and 2013-2014 winter flooding in the United Kingdom/Europe.Lacunae (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think if we clean this page up, inserted some more meteorological details, structured it better and made sure everything is relevant we wouldnt need subarticles.Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of spiting it in to the current Anglo/Irish UK storms of January-February 2014 and new mainland EU page Western European storms of January-February 2014.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed sections[edit]

The North sea storm surge (Xaver) event should be re-instated as that is the event they're running the government Bellwin Scheme (relief funding for local government) from. The Nordic events give backwards context to the "conveyor belt of storms" surrounding the Xaver event, and that this conveyor belt was arranged in a slightly different way during November. I disagree that this should be in any way be a UK only effect article, some of these storms were sat across the entire North Atlantic, with notable effects from Iceland to Morocco. These are synoptic scale events affecting multiple countries. I'm also not convinced that the flooding aspect is best shoe-horned into a single event storm template. My preference would have been for a broadly chronological article, rather than the very detailed geographical one, but I'm grateful for a dedicated user who's prepared to put in the time. I'm also not entirely keen on losing what attempts there were to differentiate between different types of flooding involved in these events.Lacunae (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you should have taken a closer look at the Meteorological analysis, before coming and complaining about the section being removed as it wasnt removed just cut back to what was sourced and relevant to this article. My rough plan is too try and make this article decent by removing subheader after subheader while structuring the article and making sure the stuff is relevant. I feel that this article is best if we do it as a general flooding article for Britain since thats worthy of an article and is as things stand the title of the article. Also i think we should just see how this article pans out.Jason Rees (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism from news articles?[edit]

Lots of parts seem copied from news articles, with phrases like "earlier this morning", "this afternoon" left in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, I'm doing it 'on the hoof' as Google and my TV suffocate in media reports, but a cleanup will occur later. Sorry about missing "earlier this morning", "this afternoon". It will be sorted soon.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There do indeed seem to have been many copy-paste additions directly from the cited news sources, by The Northaptonshire pins and some IP editors that I've seen so far. Now indeed there needs to be a clean-up – all content and hundreds of edits need to be checked. I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:Copyright problems so that that can be done. The article should not be edited until the template has been removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

I know this article's had numerous moves now, but surely the title should be Winter storms of 2013–14 in the United Kingdom? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. And don't call me Shirley. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I had thought that. Though there is some comments at the MOS about getting rid of yyyy-yy format as confusing with yyyy-mm. Keith D (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Winter storms of 2013–14 in the United Kingdom and Ireland? Irish power-cuts have occurred. (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Keith. I hadn't thought of that one. I guess it could happen with pre-2012 articles. Also, I agree about including Ireland, probably "Winter storms of 2013–2014 in Great Britain and Ireland" or "Winter storms of 2013–14 in Great Britain and Ireland"" are the ones to go for. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
How about just British Isles?.Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not a good idea as it tends to get people from Ireland a little infuriated. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There's no perfect solution in my opinion, since other options maybe too long.Jason Rees (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Anglo-Irish winter storms of 2013–14? (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I still say Europe is by far the best geographical modifier for this article, these being AKA European windstorms. The whole exceptional/notable point to these storms is the clustering and persistent formation, which, if you ignore storms not having maximum impact on the UK leaves holes in the story, merely for the sake of linguistic or geographic or just plain little Englander convenience. It seems ridiculous that the article can say the storms were (partly) caused by rainfall over Indonesia, but deliberately is excluding to mention the storm surges these very same storms have produced in Spain and Portugal, the flooding in France, record Christmas temperatures in Germany, wettest month ever in southern Norway, even to the severe drought in northern Norway. I shall have to resign myself to imagining that this article may yet outlive the UK!Lacunae (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You can come up with various names for the meteorological phenomena that is affecting Europe, however i feel this article is better if we just keep it to the UK since the flooding here is rather notable on its own with most of the country being affected.Jason Rees (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
So, you're saying this is a flood article, just using the name storm to keep johnny foreigner from having it?Lacunae (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You could put the European storm info on Winter storms of 2013–14 in Western Europe. (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible suggestion. Back in 2009 I created Winter of 1990–91, which eventually became Winter of 1990–91 in Western Europe after much discussion. Probably, as someone has suggested somewhere, we should have separate floods and storms article. The UK seems to be most affected by flooding, whereas the storms are affecting much of Western Europe. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, how about Winter floods of 2013–14 in Great Britain and Ireland and Winter storms of 2013–14 in Western Europe. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The title is fine as it is in my opinion, since its the storms that are causing the floods in the UK.Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
But as the storms are not just confined to the UK, I think in the long run this is something we'll have to address. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I know they arent confined to the UK but i feel it is better to have this article separate from the US and the European stuff since while its all linked together its too much for one article.Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Addressing the European issue would require a new article, which could be appropriately named. Some of the details of the cyclones, etc could be added to that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Length and detail[edit]

Why is this article so long and detailed? It reads as if we are trying to collate every news item into one place. This is not our job, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. To see here the details of school closures and individual MP visits to places and so on seems excessive and really just ends up with something that it is tempting to not read. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be horrible and critical and I know that a lot of hard work is being done here in good faith. But it feels almost like out-of-control newsgathering - with sometimes a concomitant loss of quality ("Lord Pickels"?) - and not what should be in an encyclopaedia. But now I have made my token protest I will shut up and let you get on with it! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree. It's already 86K long, and likely to grow further. I guess at some point the information needs consolidating. Things such as school closures are probably best summarised, and I'm not sure about the notability of entries such as "A man had been rescued from flood water in Llandogo in Monmouthshire after he had driven his van into two feet of water" and "The Old Station Inn in Cymmer, Neath Port Talbot, had to have its cellar pumped out". Probably the thing to do with this article is to organise information on a regional rather than a county basis. The presence of a time line seems a bit bizarre, too, when it has only a few entries from early February. But let's have faith in those who are working on it. Hopefully it'll take shape over the next few days/weeks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah one of the other users has been adding in what seems like every single fact about the flooding, where as im trying to consolidate it down to avoid it becoming to long.Jason Rees (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Added multiple issues tag, sigh.Lacunae (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup[edit]

‎ This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Any content added by User: The Northaptonshire pins (who also seems to have edited from several IPs) may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. I have made an effort to put back major sections added by other users where I could determine that these did not intersect with content added by the individual involved. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


The metadata section mentions at least 17 deaths. I could not find a source for the 17 victims. I could find a source for "about" 7 victims [1]. I searched for uk floods + victims, casualties, deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiggyF (talkcontribs) 08:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)