Talk:Flash floods

Previous comments on this topic
In reviewing some old Tourist Office archives - Wikivoyage:Tourist_office/Archives/2015/NovemberShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Move to Floods?
Prompted by a Travellers' pub discussion: Travellers'_pub the topic could be generalized. /Yvwv (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The question is, from the traveler's point of view, is there really much difference between a "flood" and a "flash flood"? Depending on the way you look at it, I think that can be a strong argument either for or against moving the page. I think I'm a weak support of the move; however, I wouldn't want the current content to be diluted by more general information. New content would have to have to be written in a way that keeps it still very much in line with the topic, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 03:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Flooding risk..
Prompted by the addition of a section in York, are there other places that have a higher risk?

I was going to consider asking for a rename of Flash floods to Floods to cover the more general traveller risks in more depth ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In the case of York, there's not much to say beyond a couple of paragraphs without losing focus on summarising the ways to 'stay safe'. I would have thought the same to be true of other places which regularly flood, so it might be an idea to group what general information there is into a single article, which can be fleshed out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That is why I was considering asking for an article rename of Flash floods ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it wouldn't be flash floods in York. Those (aka "pluvial" floods) are a risk in steep narrow valleys, eg the central Pennines, where a downpour on the moors above turns into a raging torrent of cocoa within the hour. York is on a meander plain where it's slow-responder (aka "fluvial") flooding: a whole 50-mile stretch of Pennine rainfall has nowhere else to drain, and 24-48 hours later the city wharves are inundated. Continue downstream to East Yorks and the risk is "alluvial", ie when storms driving a sea-surge upriver coincide with high tide, and the levees are overtopped. Grahamsands (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This source names "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; San Diego, California; Clearlake, California; San Jose, California; Madera, California; Riverside-San Bernardino, California, Bakersfield, California; Houston, Texas, Santa Cruz, California; and Huntsville, Alabama" as being the 10 US cities at highest risk of some natural disaster, but the type varies. Oklahoma City is probably a tornado risk, and the seven California cities are probably earthquake risks.  The page has an interactive map that lets you see risks for US counties, and you can filter it to only certain types of risks.  That can be interesting both for what's there (half of Alaska is high risk for floods?) and what's not (Tulsa, Oklahoma is naturally prone to flooding, but has world-class flood control measures, and the resulting risk in that area is only moderate).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Banner
I stumbled across this banner on Commons. Would this make a better banner? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Tilted, but yes, I think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I forgot about this, but I've put up both banners on the right. I think I slightly favour the new banner. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Ikan. Tilted, but more context. Vidimian (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Late, but ✅. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)