Talk:Washout (erosion)

message: I´m a foreigner so hopefullly I can tell you what I mean: If the washout would be extreme, lets say 30°, and the wing would be trimmed to that angle at the wing tips that keeps the altitude, the root of the wing would have an angle relative to the flight direction that turns down. 
This part would lead to a negative pitch so there is another part of the wing necessary to compensate this negative lift, i.e. the the effective lift is only produced by 2/3 or the half of the wing. Am I right in principle? If yes, what´s the percentage of wing that produce the effective lift with a modern  airliner? 172.180.244.116 10:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong page, you're apparently talking about Washout (aviation). Guy1890 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative lift? 

message: This page needs to be changed to a disambiguation page and/or sections need to be moved into pre-existing articles, informtaion transwikied to wiktionary or removed. Instead of just removing all the content, I think it's necessary to decide on some kind of approach for this page. Here are some ideas and suggestions:
*Washout (aviation) certainly belongs on this dab page. 
*Well drilling: This can be added into the well drilling article, which currently doesn't mention washout.
*Military: Slang terms rarely fit into any articles and I certainly can't see this fitting into any US military related ones. It might be better off on wiktionary if it does indeed meet notability according to WP:NOTE.
*Erosion: Two ideas-
1. Washout in this context basically refers to flooding and therefore it can likely be worked into the main article flood. I think this is an important item to have on the dab page, and can easily changed into a one line statement, such as something along the lines of "The destruction of roads, buildings and rainways during a flood."
2. I'm under the impression that this use of washout, in regards to flooding, is the most commonly accepted meaning. If this is indeed the case, this page should likely be about washouts in terms of flooding and a new page, Washout (disambiguation) could be created to disambiguate the other terms.
*Jamaican Culture: This could potentially be a new stub article as I don't see it fitting into the article of Jamaica. Sources would need to be found for this.
*Biochemial engineering term: I googled this but found nothing about washout being called Turnover rate. Either way there is no article on wikipedia about turnover rate. This item might not meet notability , and therefore according to WP:MOSDAB it wouldn't need to be included on this dab page. Wiktionary might be the only place for it.
*Comic Character: Since the character has its own page washout (comics), it belongs on this dab page.
These are just suggestions. Please feels to post further ideas here or respond on my talk page. Or if you feel Wikipedia:Be bold|bold go ahead and tackle the page.  -France3470 03:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough there is already a page washout (disambiguation). Which might just make all this even more confusing. I'm going to take a stab at trying to fix this mess. France3470 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When googling "washout", most results were not about this meaning. I therefore think Washout should link to the disambiguation page, and this page should be moved to Washout (erosion). Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   - You may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS and WP:MALPLACED. The move broke 206 links. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The what-links-here of "Washout" had not yet been updated to exclude incoming results from all articles with Template:Road types. I think it might take a couple of days for the system to update, and before then it's rather tedious to identify the rest. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

text:  Reverted for now. A "Foo" page can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, so an WP:RM would be necessary here. However, it would also need to be shown that the geological term was not the primary topic. bd2412 T 17:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'm making such a request below. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I just reverted myself. After searching for sources, I found a clear absence of a primary topic. The RM can continue, though. bd2412 T 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating 

message: FYI, the term washaway (also wash away) seems to be another term for a kind of landslide that has hitherto not been cross referenced by the term washout.    Tabletop (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that Washaway and Washout should be merged somehow. I'll take a stab at updating the second page in a bit. Guy1890 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washaway