Talk:June 2008 Midwest floods/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about June 2008 Midwest floods. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Pictures

Most importantly, each infobox needs a picture specific to that state showing how high the water is, or destruction, or something. Then after that, if we can find any more pictures, we can start a gallery at the bottom of the page. -- Me ^Holla! 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Iowa's Katrina

The present flooding event in Iowa exceeds, locally, what happened during the Great Flood of 1993. Cedar Rapids, Iowa will experience all that New Orleans, Louisiana experienced, but hopefully, time-wise, not what New Orleans still experiences. For the next few months, the cleanup will be massive; during the height of summer, CRians will be working hard to make their city sanitary again. For those of you not in Iowa, we've had wall-to-wall local coverage on the local stations (KGAN-TV (CBS) KCRG-TV (NBC), KWWL-TV (ABC), pre-emptimg even the national newscasts).

What happens to Iowa City, Iowa is something early next week, and we all hope the campus of the University of Iowa comes out relatively unscathed.

I suggest that this article will be split along state lines. There is so much that can be said about the Iowa event that it's unfair to the other states that we dominate the article.--Ace Telephone (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be alot of info, wisconsis and Indiana are equally as bad as Iowa - I am ok with splitting these three states off into sub articles. Orginally I started this article for just indiana but it has gown into this. :) I think for now we should keep it all together and once the sections get larger we can come to a consensus about splitting sections off. Charles Edward 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the present section on Iowa could use some cleaning up. There is overlap, repetition and areas where the timeline of events is unclear. It needs to be more encyclopedic and less on-the-spot newsy. Breaking it into sections for say Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Coralville and perhaps Des Moines would be best. Just a thought. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Should the deaths in iowa be in the floods page? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.98.158 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I added a general infobox for the entire, merged article, and boxes for each state to be updated. The latter states need a picture specific to their state, if available, as well as their information updated. -- Me ^Holla! 11:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need all of those infoboxes? -- master son^{T - C} 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. When the other sections of the article are expanded, it will look better. -- Me ^Holla! 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There should only be only one infobox per article. de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Vorlagenauswertung/en --Matthiasb (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Is this talking about the 10 inches that some in Paragon, Indiana received on 6/7 (and the rain in the region on that date), or another event earlier in the week? I don't want to change the date if it refers to an event that I'm not aware of. -- Me ^Holla! 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I took everything out of the news articles on referenced. It didnt state where specifically the ten inches received was, just that some places had ten inches. Feel free to update with whatever info you can find. Charles Edward 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -- Me ^Holla! 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"From the plains of Kansas to the mountains of West Virginia" this sounds a bit hokey to me. Isn't this part of the song, "Oh beautiful for Spacious Skies," or that GMC commercial that plays over and over "From the west coast, to the east coast. etc,etc,etc..." I think some specificity might be a little more appropriate here.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads like it was copied from the linked web site (not sure if it was or not). I removed it because it didn't add anything to the article. -- Me ^Holla! 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand to include rest of Midwest?

I strongly suggest such action since simultaneous events took place with flooding in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. I think this option would be more viable than building a separate article for the others. The flooding is a result of multiple storm systems and I'm sure Indiana's going to get more in the coming days. This event is very similar to 2007 Midwest flooding -- master son^{T - C} 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, while other states have not been as strongly affected as Indiana, the broader storm has caused death and damage in other states in the upper midwest. At least one is dead in Michigan and another in Illinois and another in Iowa, i think i read 8 it total. Plus tornadoes in WI,iowa, MI, and MO. I would suggest June 2008 Midwest Flood we could always rename it later. Charles Edward

I moved the article and subbed all of Indiana's info and started sections for the other states i have read about in the references. Charles Edward 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll There are a boatload of details about WI, IA, MI floods all over the National Weather Service site.

There's more than likely more to come. I'll add this later in the week since I have long days the next few days. -- master son^{T - C} 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does June have to be a part of the title? Was there similar mass flooding in Jannuary, February, March, April, or May? 2008 Midwest Floods seems accurate enough. Plus, the title lacks a capitalization on Floods. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to the same degree, but there were bad floods in the Midwest in January. That's part of the reason these floods have been so bad. -- Me ^Holla! 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There were significant floods in March and January in the midwest - see the see also section. The year is also not over yet, so presumably more floods could occur. Floods was capitalized originally, but someone changed it citing WP:MOS, because it is not a proper name it should remain lower case. Charles Edward 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Flood Name?

Some news networks in Iowa have already been calling this "The Great Flood of 2008" it seems like they are jumping the gun. I emailed kcrg.com about them using that for the name and they ended up changing it, but I didn't get a reply back. Just thought its worth mentioning here. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.17.251 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If that becomes widely used we could rename the article to that. Charles Edward 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be considered such a name for one specific ciry, but it would take a lot to happen for it to be referred to that region or nation wide. WxGopher (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty bad actually.. at least 300sq miles are underwater still here indiana.. I think its more than that in wisconsis. We will see :) Charles Edward 00:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox news is calling started calling this the 500 Year Flood today. [1], sounds fair and balanced to me.. hahaha, I still don't see an emerging patern for a name yet though. Charles Edward 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the name 500 Year Flood again today, twice on the radio. Has anyone else heard a name? Charles Edward 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in Des Moines and the name 500 Year Flood has been used in reference to the "500 year flood plain", which is a term used in the major affected cities for the area likely to flood, especially in Des Moines. The Great Flood of '93 was called a 100 year flood, but that name is not used much locally. I would say delete the "Great" at this point, Flood of 2008 is just fine. Most people still call it the Flood of '93 anyway, without the "Great". Iowa13 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that you need to include the region in the name. "Flood of 2008" could be Myanmar for all the reader knows. No disrespect to those affected or deceased, but the title "500 year flood" is so insanely sensationalized I can't even believe that it is being discussed.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A 500-year flood is one that will occur, on average, once every 500 years; that is, it has an 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year. It's not a name for a flood, it's a description. 4.245.107.106 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the reason for using the term "500 year flood" - But in the places I am reading it is not saying "A 500 year flood", it is being called "The 500 year flood". I am still not seeing it used everywhere, local stuff here in Indiana is calling it that, also Fox News keep referring to it that way, and is ABC radio. Charles Edward

01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I'd like to reiterate that the title "500 Year Flood" is something that sounds of biblical proportions. Can we keep some objectivity here? There wasn't even one English speaking person on this continent 500 years ago. Is it even possible to prove that a flood, however large or small, occurs on a 500 year interval?

Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

500 year flood should not be used for this article, or for any on wikipedia for that matter because it is a completely regional description. There was a 500 year flood in Minnesota in 2000, a 500 year flood in North Dakota in 1997, a 500 year flood in other parts of Iowa and Missouri in 1993, etc. In other words, there are, and have been, a lot of 500 year floods, so using that terminology for the of the article just doesn't make sense. WxGopher (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

?? IM ok with the name the way it is. But does not the MOS say that article names should be what is subject matter is most commonly called? If 500 year flood becomes the common term - then it should be used. But i agree it is not that common yet. The point of this thread was to decide if a common name is developing. Charles Edward 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But what happens if next year there is, god forbid, similar flooding? Should we begin to consider the use of the phrase "501 year flood." That is if Fox News uses this phrase too.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FLOODS

UM....WELL THIS OS A SIGN OF GOBSL WARNINH SO STOP IT --Preceding unsigned comment added by Qq111 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding these storms were produced by unussually cold air masses for the time of year. I've no come across a source directly linking this to global warming. But if you have please let us no so the info can be added. Charles Edward 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IDK what that even means. Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think i read an article linking this to la nina/el nino? and from then on, to global climate change...but it can't be global warming as WI got hail in June :) I'll try find it...mathwhiz 29 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming doesn't mean that hail can't occur in Wisconsin during the month of June.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, guys, but can't you spot a troll when you see one? :P --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm, well actually Mister Troll, flooding is a result of more runoff water going into the stream instead of soaking through the ground. I'm sure there's a meteorology course you can take at a local college to edumac8te yurselv. Heres the USGS definition of why: [2] .:DavuMaya:. 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Great Iowa Flood of 2008

I am opposed to a merge with this article. In fact i beleive we should begin seperate articles for Indiana and Wisconsis also once more information become available. These three articles are going to have alot of information availble as their damage is far more widespread than the other effected states. If the other state grow to a fair size it may also be prudent to split them off. I think Iowa is just the only state to reach a size where it can split Charles Edward 16:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed here. Most of the flooding right now is taking place in Iowa, the vast majority of the coverage is centered on eastern Iowa and Des Moines. Wisconsin had some bad stuff earlier in the month, it's not really connected to Iowa. The main problems Iowa has had are with the Cedar, Des Moines, and Iowa Rivers, none of which affect Wisconsin at all. Iowa13 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until the flooding ends and the event is not current anymore, then we should decide if the merge will be a good idea Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

...You were the one that made the original Indiana topic include the rest of the Midwest in the first place... -- Me ^Holla! 23:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it would be fine to keep this article, then have separate articles for the states with enough information to have a separate page. Then we'll have this one as a sort of roundup for the other specific articles. -- Me ^Holla! 23:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify, right now only Iowa has enough info to be it's own article. I believe the other states should all be included her until such time as they become long enough to warrant becoming their own article, I believe that Indiana and Wisconsin will also have enough info to eventually become their own article. If they do no grow to that extent then they should not be seperated - But this page should remain as a summary of all the floods because they are all related. Charles Edward 01:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the rivers in Iowa to crest and all the water to move to the Mississippi. Then we'll see if this flood has legs or if it is a purely regional event. They've already closed the Mississippi in places to barge traffic. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To give Great Iowa Flood of 2008 a feel of a sub-article rather than a duplicate of sorts, why not rename to Effects of the June 2008 Midwest floods in Iowa? That seems better to me if we are to keep the articles seperate. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like Juliancolton's idea. This makes the most sense to me. It eliminates possible confusion between the articles and establishes the hierarchy that I think is needed. This type of naming is done for Tropical Cyclone articles (such as this one) and I think it works well. WxGopher (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Favor Merger - I strongly favor the merger. We have other multi-state flood precedents -- Great Flood of 1993 and Great Flood of 1951. Floods that are caused by the same basic weather pattern need to be lumped together. Multistate tornadoes are categorized that way. Floodwaters do not recognize state boundaries. It's going to invite inaccuracies if the same basic weather data is brought up multiple times. Americasroof (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly favor the merger. If we want to organize info by state, headings within the article can be used. If we end up with enough detailed info about damage and other effects within each specific state, we could also have articles about the effects in that particular state, provided the titles of these more specific articles make it clear that they provide more detail about the same event covered in this article. Also, I found the guideline indicating that articles should not be longer than 36 KB total text size to accommodate users and editors with older hardware, operating systems, and web browsers here. Where did you find the guideline indicating a recommended maximum size of 75 KB? Just in case anyone is curious, the article as I loaded it a moment ago had a total .html size of 126 KB and a text size (copying and saving the text only) of more than 20 KB. Also, I've never observed any concern over article size in any other discussions I've read, and the guideline page even acknowledges that many articles are over 400 KB long (it didn't specify if this was the whole article or just text). I honestly don't think article size is a high priority concern. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Highly oppose [The article Great Iowa flood of 2008 is approaching the 36K limit, something in Wikipedia rules about; the article will become longer. The rest of the topic of this article is expired: this flood remains an ongoing event, whereas the previous event is largely expired (tho' floodwaters suggest a new article, in that the Army Corps has opened the floodgates of the locks an dams south of Dubuque, Iowa, down to Keokuk, Iowa, just to not let the floodwater overtop the dams: umm Great Mississippi River flood of 2008.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Telephone (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 June 2008

Yes articles should not exceed 75k. These two combined would soon exceed that. But you are mistaken that this is no longer on going - flooding in Iowa is ending but has still not crested on the Mississippi. Many areas of WI, IL, and IN are still under water too. There will be more details available on those states eventually. Iowa is not the only place with flooded cities... 15k are still displaced in Indiana alone. Charles Edward 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It usta be 36K; I trust that 75K is now the limit. I pity the editor who would try and merge the articles, considering all the very local detail (and that the fact that the article is Wikipedia paradigmatic, in so far as structure goes); I'd be the first to go cry to an Admin. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City are past, but a huge amount of sequelae are to occur. This is a great flood. --Ace Telephone (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to complain to an administrator is no way to negotiate with editors such as myself that strongly believe the two articles should be merged. I respect that this is one of the great floods of the century, but I think the titles are misleading, which could potentially lead readers to think they are two unrelated floods. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For those of us old geezers who remember the 1993 flood coverage, this is a nearly identical scenario to 1993 except that this one may well be end up being bigger. The 93 flood started out with apocalyptic coverage of Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Iowa City... and Bill Clinton coming in to feel the pain. Then the focus shifted downstream. National coverage tonight is starting to focus on Illinois and Missouri and downplaying Iowa. This is a regional event and not unique to Iowa. Americasroof (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - At the moment, I would be in favor of leaving it all as is and giving it time to figure out what is relevant for an annal style article and what will serve as a long term Wikipedia article with basic encyclopedic narrative that tells the entire story. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The Iowa page is already long enough and detailed enough to not support a merge with this page Ctjf83Talk 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I guess if we are going to start counting votes I might as well.. I oppose for only one reason, i think the articles combined would be too lengthy and would be a violation of WP:SUMMARY. The thing that needs to be determined is if the Iowa article is a subarticle of this article. If so then the names of the two articles needs to made similary to comply with WP:Naming conventions (common names)#Subsidiary articles Charles Edward 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The merge proposal has been removed from the Iowa article, so I guess someone has already made a decision on that article. WxGopher (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I strongly agree with Americasroof above, this is becoming a 1993 situation in the areas of Winfield and Elsberry, where as of now at 4:30 local time, their main levee near US Highway 79 has gave way to the strength of the water in 3 places, and to be honest, that probably won't be a final number by the 10 PM news. Major flooding in areas like Winfield, Elsberry, Clarksville, and Hannibal are reaching near 1993/1973 water levels. I know here in Grafton it's a serious situation, I myself have spent the past four days cleaning out my ground floor basement and filling sandbags, trying to protect our land, or in the least case our house! However, with these breaking news stories coming often of breaching, the crest has gone down already .4 feet in the past day to it's current crest of 30 feet even on the 25th. Granted, 30 feet even is exactly the level of our basement level, but that's beside the point. The whole point here is that this is a situation that, by the time it's all over and done with, will be quite important to... archive. This isn't a Great Flood of 1993 by any means, but it undoubtedly will deserve it's own article by flood's end. --NapalmRiot (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"June 2008 Midwest floods" is ambiguous

Midwest what? Midwest europe?

Should be changed to June 2008 USA floods, unless there are other big floods happening, in which case, June 2008 Midwestern USA floods

You don't see the china floods being called "2008 South floods", they're called "2008 South China floods" for a good reason

92.21.92.169 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But I'm not sure about the "June" I think that 2008 serves well for the timeframe. Suggestion:

"2008 Midwest United States Floods" --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June needs to stay if there is no general name (like The 500 Year Flood that was being kicked around). The Midwest suffered through some floods in the early part of the year, so the June is needed. As to the "Midwestern United States" part, is "Midwestern Europe" or "Midwestern China" commonly used names? If not, Midwest is the best name. -- Me ^Holla! 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe does not have a Midwest. The middle of Western Europe (France, Be-Ne-Lux and the British Isles) would be the English Channel. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. If you type Midwest to look up an article, you are redirected to Midwestern United States. What other region of the world, besides the American Midwest, is commonly called the "Midwest"? Charles Edward 12:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see: Midwest (disambiguation) --Tocino 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See Also Section