Talk:1607 Bristol Channel floods

message: This article sounds more like a debate on whether the flood was caused by a Tsunami or not. It should rather be an article on the Bristol Channel Floods of 1607. There is also it must be said, extremely little evidence that the floods were the result of a tsunami and more focus should be given to the more accepted theories on the flood's cause. Rather the tsunami theory is given most attention as if it is a widely accepted theory on the cause of the flood when it is not. By far most research I have seen say the evidence points to a tidal surge similar to the one which struck the other side of Britain in 1953.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsunami or tidal surge?

message: I recently removed a broken reference to Bryant & Haslett. This is not a "POV push against the tsunami theory", in fact I added the URL so that there paper in the Journal of Geology could be accessed by other users. My reasoning is based on working through the Wikiproject Somerset cleanup listing where this article shows up as lacking in text citations - which is not true so I removed the banners. My other action was to remove those in external links which are already used as references.— Rod talk 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: References 7 and 10 in the current list are both broken and do not enable readers to go and evaluate them. If these are to be kept in (which i don't think they should) then dead link labels should be added.— Rod talk 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2002 paper is available here.  Alternative refs that could be considered include this and this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text:   is entirely reasonable, as would be trawling Bath Poly's site to find if they're still online elsewhere. However these were both published journals which are recoverable (libraries didn't close when the intaweb started) so they're still perfectly acceptable refs, even if the URLs aren't recoverable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added deadlink to ref 10 & replaced the URL for ref 7.— Rod talk 22:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryant & Haslett refs 

message: Seems to be there for no obvious reason! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.— Rod talk 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monach Islands link? 

message: Yes, the Welsh for Bristol Channel floods is Llif Mawr Môr Hafren' (literally: "Big Severn Estuary Flood", I don't dispute that (although llifogydd might be more accurate?) But is the Welsh translation particularly relevant to the article? As far as I know, the coastal parts of South Wales affected by the floods were, as they are today, predominantly English-speaking. The article currently doesn't include any contemporary Welsh language sources and if there are any I'd be pleased to see them. The memorial brass set into the wall of St Mary's in Goldcliff, three years later, is very certainly in English. Diolch yn fawr. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they even take place in Wales?  Where was Monmouthshire back then? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "The devastation was particularly severe on the Welsh side, extending from Laugharne in Carmarthenshire to above Chepstow..." But the parts most severely affected were certainly the Caldicot and Wentloog Levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Llif Mawr Môr Hafren" 

message: The original text read: "On the 400th anniversary, 30 January 2007, BBC Somerset looked at the possible causes and asked whether it could happen again in the county."  added "cSevern Tidings, Issue 9, Winter 2006-07, Severn Estuary Partnership, page 6.". I reverted as it makes no sense to add a "c" with a citation. Sennecaster restored the edit with the comment "copyright violation removals should not be reverted without explanation" I reverted again with the comment "Adding a source is not a removal of a copyright violation". This was again reverted with "there was more than a source added. For the edit to be "adding a source" then the only thing the edit should contain is the addition of a reference without text. This is a WP:CLOP/WP:CV removal. If you want to revert further, go to the talk page". I agree that there was not only a source as there was also a text "c", but I do not see how the edit makes sense or how it can relate a copyright violation. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dudley Miles; you're reading my edit entirely wrong. Yes, I inserted a c by accident, but I also removed copyvio. If you use visual diff, you see that I removed the paragraph cited to the Severn Tidings source. In wikitext, it shows that I merged 2 paragraphs (so deleted 2 paragraphs, created one paragraph), but I really only removed the actually copied content and then accidentally hit a key when I was moving the ref via control c and control v. Please read edits more closely before you hit revert, especially on copyright or BLP. Also, reverting over a singular misinerted letter is silly. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure why the Severn Tidings source was retained, as it doesn't support the  sentence about the BBC article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that I missed the removal of the next paragraph, but I was misled by you making the Severn Tidings source wrongly support the BBC comment, as Martinevans says. Even without the rogue "c", the edit was correctly reverted as it wrongly left in the source. It is not reasonable to expect editors to understand what is meant by a bad and confusing edit. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I got harangued on talk pages repeatedly for removing references so I just started merging them upwards. You can't win for losing because now the opposite is happening. :P  Sennecaster (Chat) 01:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm haranguing you? Do we want that source there or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not want the source as the statement it supports has been deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text:  I am sorry if you get wrongly harangued for deleting a citation when you delete the statement it supports, but I think you just have to reply pointing out that it corrupts an article for statements to be supported by irrelevant citations. A solution might be, when you delete for copyvio, to explain the edit on the talk page and invite editors to reinsert the comment in their own words and restore the citation if they think it is important. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert