Talk:2007 United Kingdom floods/Archive 1

message: Just a note on heading style.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) advises to use ==heading== and ===subheading===. --Elliskev 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading style

message: In the Impacted areas - Humberside section there is a red link to Hull (City). Is this the same as Kingston upon Hull? --Elliskev 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes generaly known as Hull but the correct term is Kingston upon Hull.— Rod talk 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now made a redirect, too - just in case. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Hull (City) 

message: Could we get a section outlining the cause for the flooding? And how about a "reaction" section too? 82.16.7.63 05:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a great source, but there was someone on the radio yesterday blaming it not on global warming 9for once0 but on [[flood plainn building and the canalising of rivers - in essence, water that would normally be absorbed naturally now can't, and it washes onto farmalnd and towns. I'll try to find a source for this statement. Totnesmartin 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rain. Lugnuts 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.-- M2Ys4U (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Gordon Brown seems to be blaming global warming: "Obviously like every advanced industrial country we're coming to terms with some of the issues surrounding climate change." BBC News. That's a pretty bold claim and it merits a mention. Mattmm 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause for all this? 

message: Someone needs to check for duplication. The sentence about the number of homeless appears twice, but I'm not sure which to delete. Digifiend 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted it from the Hull section and left it in the introduction, although I think this could be improved. Also I'm slightly dubious about the statistic of 17,000 homeless in Hull - I think this needs a citation to back it up. MartinBrook t 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised down to 6,500:  - MPF 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check the text 

message: As there is continuing floods now in July, should these be included here? If so, shouldn't this be renamed "Summer 2007 United Kingdom floods"
Torrential rain sweeps across UK (an example of a news report. 
Simply south 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, have moved the page to it's new title. Just needs the details on this weeks events added. Yorkshiresky 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it Summer 2007 United Kingdom floods?  :Category:Floods in the United Kingdom doesn't have any other UK floods from this year, so shouldn't it just be 2007 United Kingdom floods.  Keep in mind that the title can often be confusing at first for other users since tropical areas don't have the four seasons and they're reversed in the southern hemisphere (see WP:SEASON).  17Drew 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems clear consensus for this move from yourself, myself, and another user below with no objecting views. I will move this now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 

message: Has anyone seen a map showing the scale of the floods with the original course of the rivers and the extent of flooding superimposed over the top? I think something like that would make a great addition to this article. Vance2038 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are maps showing the river courses and the affected counties on the BBC site but not seen any showing the extent that rivers have burst their banks yet. Worth keeping an eye on the media (One of the broadsheets had a good map of flood areas in a special feature section after the 03 floods) and/or the Environment Agency who are responsible for issuing the flood warnings, maintaining flood defences, etc... - JVG 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Floods? 

message: At present we have "The RAF said it is carrying out its biggest ever peacetime operation, with six Sea King helicopters rescuing up to 120 people." and this is cited at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6911226.stm.  Whilst I absolutely accept that the BBC is a credible source I suspect that this remark has been taken out of context.  It might be that the RAF are running their biggest ever search and rescue peacetime operation (yes, I know this is "original research" on my part), but compared to the RAF airlift during the Berlin Blockade, six Sea Kings pales into insignificance. I can find several other examples of bigger peacetime operations if people don't like the Berlin airlift one. Greenshed 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Only this BBC article states that it is "biggest ever peacetime operation", while all other sources describe it as  "biggest ever peacetime  rescue operation". So I added reference to search and rescue nature of this operation and some references to credible sources. Ilvil 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest RAF peacetime operation?

message: There actually have been more deaths across Europe from the heat and similar effects such as crop damage, so why is this not also on the main page?--Trustbother 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is awful. The correct place for this discussion is WP:ITN/C. Capuchin 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be be old news anyway from the article. 2007 Bulgarian Heat wave is more recent but the article isn't that great either Nil Einne 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a heat wave in Europe too, and this is just as notable as the floods 

message: I suggest that the page is moved to the simpler, and more normal, 2007 United Kingdom floods. There is no other article to disambiguate from. Bridgeplayer 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wales has, with flash flooding and with the floods in Barry last week, plus near Welshpool more recently. Not heard of anything in Scotland though. - JVG 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glasgow was affected in one of the June floods (already mentioned in the article) - MPF 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I have made a more simpler heading dividing the current event up with the June one, makes more simpler reading I think --88.109.242.121 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: There are various references in the article to the "worst flooding" or "worst effected". It seems to me that this is just a POV unless there is a reference to some sort of official source for such a statement. For example, in the Oxfordshire section what is the basis for saying that the flooding in Abingdon was worse than that in, say, Banbury or Witney?
By the way, the rivers Thames and Cherwell do not meet in Abingdon, that is the Thames and the Ock. The Cherwell joins the Thames at Oxford. 86.138.40.220 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Worst? 

message: Article currently says "Damage to business and property is estimated to be over £2 billion" - an insurance expert interviewed on Radio 4 Today programme (24 July) said £5 billion; if that can be found on the Beeb website, it should be added - MPF 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost of damage

message: I've a chunk of photos (pushing towards 300 just now) of flooding in and around Oxford here; if any of them would be any use to the article, let me know and I'll reupload them to Commons. Shimgray | talk | 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford images 

message: :Image:Gloscityflood07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gloscityflood07.jpg

message: There's some debate over whether the premature twins who died in Tewkesbury/Cheltenham were flood victims or not. 
* The BBC report is headlined "Twins die in rescue bid" and leaves you to draw your own conclusions - but the report doesn't flat-out say they were flood victims.  
* The Gloucestershire Police statement points out that the helicopter(s?) got the babies to the hospital quicker than an ambulance would have done and leaves you to draw your own conclusions - but the report doesn't flat-out say the flood did not cause the premature labour, doesn't flat-out say that the time-from-999-call-to-hospital-arrival (the crucial benchmark) was any more/less than it would have been if there was no flooding, and doesn't flat-out say whether the equipment onboard the helicopter was equivalent to that onboard an ambulance. 
So I'm faced with two ambiguous contradictory sources and I'm tearing my hair out over what to do. Given the conflicting reports, I've moved the twins to "Conflicting reports" and will downcount the death toll accordingly. If anybody else can come up with a source (that isn't a blog!) that says flat-out that they were flood victims, please feel free to move them back. But, at the risk of sounding sentimental, I'd really rather not take the responsibility for that decision. For me, this started off as an exercise in Wikipedia copyediting, but now I'm trying to work out which column to put dead children in. And I'm trying to do it dispassionately, and find a clear statement from a reputable source, like a good wikieditor should, and all the rest. But it's a deeply distressing exercise. 
Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sensitive and personal information does not belong to the wikipedia because Wikipedia is not memorial. See this discussed  here. (Igny 02:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definite, definite agreement. Thank you Igny. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The twins 

message: The Meteorological background section needs a mention of La Niña and the changed line of the jet stream, as mentioned on the BBC pages. --Concrete Cowboy 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteorological background 

message: A RhynCheck on this page has found 1 Dead Link: ref [17]^ (sect. [3]^).  1 Malformatted link was found and corrected by the RhynCheck.  Rhynri 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RhynCheck Dead Link

message: Images available on Commons: :Commons:2007 United Kingdom floods. Man vyi 06:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: I understand that as a current event most sources will be from the news but I'm sure there are other sources out there.  
Relating to the loss of water supply there is a lot of information on the Severn Trent website www.stwater.co.uk which is never referenced here.  Additionally does anyone know how to archive the information on the Severn Trent website for reference, as I doubt that information will stay on the front page of even the website at all for long?  ZeroRPM 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use the Wayback Machine on [www.archive.org the Internet Archive]. Putting in the URL www.stwater.co.uk, it looks like they unfortunately haven't been archiving it that frequently the last few months. However, they might still grab a copy while the information is up there (I hope!). In that case, you could use the archived page there as your source. Here's hoping! Skittle 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Sources 

message: If this is situation in rainfall of around 150 mm , then imagine 944 mm of cloud burst in 24 hr during 26-7-2005. Read 2005_Maharashtra_floods.  WIN 11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain recent rainfall is nothing comparing Mumbai 2005 downpour