Talk:1997 Red River flood

message: I added the "Societal Response" Section along with the information and citations that go with it. --Mhubbe2 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Updates/additions 

message: Citations missing for the entire overview section, the first paragraph for the "Previous floods" section, and the first paragraph for the "Impacts" section. --Mhubbe2 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citations 

message: This article is quite Manitoba-centric -- quite inappropriate considering most of the damage was done in Grand Forks.  Unfortunately, I don't have much direct knowledge of the floods, so this is going to take a bit of research.  Care to help?  --Alexwcovington 16:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This statement needs clarification: “There was overabundant snowfall the past winter. A total of 98.6 inches (250 cm) of snow accumulated.”
In what city was this number?  Does “accumulation” mean the snow that was on the ground at the end of winter or the total snowfall over the winter?  My recollection is that for Fargo the previous record snowfall for a winter was 89.9 inches, and then Fargo got about 120 inches of snowfall in the winter of 1996-97, exceeding the previous record by a third.  This is my unresearched recollection.
Olivia
*If I recall, (I am at work right now but will do some serious editing when I get home tonight), the 98.6 was in canada.  Fargo received well over 100 inches that year.  I have a few taped news broadcasts from that year.  Let me break them out of storage and fire up the VCR (haven't done that in years).  I'll see if we can balance this article out a bit.--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning snowfall amount 

message: I'd think it would be informative to provide a table of the final river crest levels for each major city along the river.  In light of the current flooding of the Red in 2006, I've seen incorrect information pop up in current news reports comparing this year's flood to 1997 (GF's crest of 54 feet in 1997 was recently used to incorrectly contrast against Fargo's projected crest of 37.5 feet for this year).  --Djamund 04 Apr 2006
I think that's a good idea.  I wouldn't mind seeing a Fargo-Moorhead section either.  Subsurd 18:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should add table of final crest levels 

message: The arial photo below the photo of the river gaudge seems to not be from 1997.  The Blue Moose Bar and Grill building is not in the photo- at the time of the 1997 flood it was located just south of DeMers Ave between Opticare and the dike.  The Pillsbary Bridge still has rails and ties on it.  At the time of the flood, the bridge had been converted to a pedestrian bridge, with a fence lineing the sides. -JWGreen 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image not from 1997? 

message: I plan on bringing the article up to Good article status in the next few weeks. I'm planning on using sources from two books I got at my campus's library and will search for online sources after that. If there are any errors, please correct them, and the article may be changed quite a bit as I create new sections for the information I find. --Nehrams2020 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded a photo of the amount of snow from 1997 to wikipedia commons, :Image:1997snow.JPG.  It isn't the best quality, but it definitly illustrates the amount of snow, which there isn't any photos of in the article. -JWGreen 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm interested where this measurment was taken, because without that information, the measurment means nothing. "The worst flood on record was in 1826, when settlers of the Selkirk Colony fled water reaching 36½ ft (11.1 m) above the river bed." Theres also no citation for the text. -JWGreen 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't find a source for it, remove it for now or make it a hidden comment and we can look for it later. I have a large amount of information on the fire in downtown Grand Forks. Should that be its own section, or do we want to limit it to two or three paragraphs? --Nehrams2020 05:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fire is notable enough to have its own section. -JWGreen 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I had noticed that, and was going to add more sources for more mention on the Canadian floods, and I also realized that there is almost no information on Fargo either. The main reason that the article is mostly centered on Grand Forks is because most of the sources I have found (including books) focus on Grand Forks, but I'll start focusing my searches on the other areas later this week (I have 2 tests to study for). --Nehrams2020 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be totally out of the question to break the article into 1997 Red River Flood in the United States and 1997 Red River Flood in Canada? We could keep 1997 Red River flood as a brief overview that links to the other two articles. Since so much of what we have in the article focuses on the flood in the US, 1997 Red River Flood in the United States would be more than ready for GA status and 1997 Red River Flood in Canada would have a ways to go. I don't know...I'm kind of thinking out loud. Let me know what you think. I'm not sure if there is any precedent for breaking down an article like this into individual country articles.  --MatthewUND(talk) 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a good idea, if others agree as well. With the amount of information we have already, I do think that "1997 Red River Flood in the United States" would reach GA status fairly quickly once we incorporated more information on Fargo, EGF, and any other areas that were afflicted. If there is no reasons against it, I'd say that we should do it. --Nehrams2020 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like my idea...I wasn't sure if I was thinking too far out of the box with that one. I think splitting the article would make it less confusing for readers. If you really like the idea, go ahead and split the article. --MatthewUND(talk) 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably do it on Thursday or this weekend sometime, which will leave time for some people to raise any objections they have. Otherwise, I'll start splitting it into the two articles. --Nehrams2020 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA candidate

message: I just placed the merge tempalte without being aware of teh above discussion; I suppose of this had been "in the United States" I might not have noticed; but I see no reason for them to be separate, other than the bulk of inforamtion.  Flood-control efforts were bi-national and it's hard to talk about the one without talking also about the other; rather than breaking this on "national" lines I think the river is a single "organism" and this was one event, not two.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a single event, but for the amount of information present for the "in the U.S." article, I believe it is justified to have its own article. If you look at some major hurricanes, you can see separate articles for the impact of the storm on different states or regions (examples include: Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Mississippi, Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Georgia, Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States, Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Florida, or Effects of Hurricane Wilma in The Bahamas) Due to the amount of information for "in Canada", it may possibly be merged back into the original article (and possibly split off again when there is significant expansion on it in the future). However, I think "in the U.S." should remain separate due to its current size/coverage and the reasons in the discussion above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Merge. One event, two sides of the border. "Canada" is misleading in the other article since the Red River only exists in Manitoba, and no-one east of Thunder Bay even heard about it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the comment above that the U.S. article has enough detail to stand on its own and need not be merged with this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: There is no citation listed for the closing sentence in the Prior Flood section “Homes not damaged in that flood were incorrectly assumed to be safe from a future flood.”  I am researching the potential for catastrophic floods. One section looks into the perceptions held by the general populations regarding risk. A citation for your closing sentence would be helpful to my research. Thank You.Rharmon1200 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior Floods 

message: 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!
* http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/radar/spaceborne/radarsat1/action/canada/images/may01.jpg
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-05-25 06:28:00, 404 Not found
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-06-08 18:28:43, 404 Not found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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!
* http://www.state.nd.us/dem/flood97/history.htm
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-05-25 06:28:00, 404 Not Found
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-06-08 18:28:57, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: 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!
* http://www.library.uiuc.edu/gex/bibs/redriverflood.html
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-05-25 06:28:02, 404 Not Found
** In 1997 Red River flood on 2011-06-08 18:30:41, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: :I am having some issues here. This article and some others capitalizes flood. This is a list of floods from Red River floods:
*1826 Red River flood
*1861 Red River flood
*1882 Red River flood
*1897 Red River flood
*1950 Red River flood
*1966 Red River flood
*1969 Red River flood
*1978 Red River flood
*1979 Red River flood
*1989 Red River flood
*1996 Red River flood
*1997 Red River flood
*1998 Red River flood
*1999 Red River flood
*2001 Red River flood
*2006 Red River flood
*2009 Red River flood
*2010 Red River flood
*2011 Red River flood
*2013 Red River flood
*1997 Red River Flood in the United States (a "good article")
:"Flood" was capitalized in the list and I changed those but there is still this article that is "B" class. The problem is the naming inconsistencies across Wikipedia. I actually find it somewhat alarming that an article can be elevated to good article class with the word "flood" capitalized when it is not a proper noun like the Great Flood of 1844. With this reasoning January 2009 North American ice storm should be Ice Storm or October 2013 Great Plains blizzard Great Plains Blizzard.
:Here are some examples:
*Missoula Floods
*Bonneville flood
*Johnstown Flood
*Willamette Valley Flood of 1996
:The vast majority of articles do not capitalize "flood" as can be seen at :Category:Floods in the United States or List of floods, List of floods in Europe, 2009 Brazilian floods and mudslides, and many other but there are so many exceptions. How about 1966 Flood of the Arno River
:There needs to be consistency on such a simple matter. Otr500 (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but in order to do this, 1997 Red River flood needs to be deleted, and therefore (see next heading). Anomalocaris (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red River floods 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1997 Red River flood. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Anomalocaris (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 Red River flood listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1997 Red River flood. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328103430/http://www.fema.gov/hazard/archive/grandforks/statistics.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/hazard/archive/grandforks/statistics.shtm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified