This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofArizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
20 out of 20 of the multiple year floods listed on List of floods do not abbreviate the latter year to two digits and the policy in WP:NUMBERS seems to be pretty clear that years should not be abbreviated. (Since it is linked on the same page, I'll mention that there are some exceptions such as 2022–23 North American winter, but that seems to be done that way to be consistent with NOAA naming.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence (last line of 1st paragraph of lede) should be deleted. It will be meaningless very soon. The source is dated January 10, and I think it would be a spectacular year if that record holds much longer. The lede isn't a place for this. It's a meaningless statistic that makes the death toll sound more significant than it is. Deaths are always awful and significant, but this ranking only 10 days into the year is not significant, and it's not part of the story. Dcs002 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was alerted to this discussion on my talk page, so I thought I would chime in. At the present time, the floods rank the deadliest meteorological event in 2023. I hope not, but probably within a few weeks, it will drop to number 2 in the world. As brought up by Dcs002, it would be meaningless to mention it being the 2nd deadliest in the world. That said, for a few months at least, I think it will remain the deadliest U.S. meteorological event in 2023. Once it drops to number 2 globally, the wording should be changed for the U.S. deadliest event. If it drops to number 2 on both of them, then that part should be taken out completely, but while it remains the deadliest in the world and/or US, that sentence does have a significant and true meaning. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this seems to me to be promotion of his own templates. We’re 4% over with the year. I seriously doubt 19 deaths is the deadliest of the year, although it could be in the top five. Still, though, unless it holds out long enough to be picked up in a reliable source, it shouldn’t count. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. A discussion for potential merge of this article is taking place in the section below. Right now this article is not moved, but a merge might take place depending on the consensus of the below discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk)12:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article should cover all flooding in California during the rainy season of 2022 and 2023. March 2023 California floods should be merged into this article. Most of the issues the communities are facing are a continuation of the problems faced in this article. It makes no sense to divide them into distinct articles. I hadn't gotten around to proposing a merge with that article yet.
Oppose. Agree with Fettlemap: this article should be about all floods during the 22-23 rain season in California, which is July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Any California floods within that time frame should be covered here, or at least referenced as a subtopic. --В²C☎04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I propose merging March 2023 California floods into 2022–2023 California floods. I think later storms are a continuation and not a discrete event for most communities. While actual storm dates and amounts are put into the article, the subject is really the impact on the individual communities. The relationship between the attempted recovery from December-January and the further storms could then easily be included without duplicating content between two articles. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in March 2023 California floods. I was actually looking for a infobox template like they use in the annual California wildfire summaries. Fettlemap (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes a lot more sense than attempting to subdivide every episode. The active weather pattern is still ongoing and there could be almost-continuous flooding issues through spring into summer—it's already more an event on the seasonal timescale, not a monthly one. Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flooding in March 2023 is unrelated to the floods in December-January; it is simply coincidental timing that both happened to end a drought. Otherwise, we would also have to include the July/August floods in California in this article, as they were also in 2022. Unless the march 2023 article can’t grow out of a stub, it makes no sense to merge the two together. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It makes sense to broaden the focus of 2022-2023 floods to include not just the December-January period but the rainy season as a whole, much like California fire articles include all of the fire season, instead of breaking out month by month, especially as Penitentes says: March floods are a continuation of the same weather pattern from late December. March flooding info will obviously continue to grow as storms roll in, but that shouldn't stop us from creating a more clear summary of the whole California rainy season. --Fuzchia (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the others that are in support of the merge, like Penitentes was saying if we try to subdivide every storm it will cause multiple pages, and like they said, this wasn't one stand alone event this winter, and this weather is still coming, and if there is flooding when the temperature starts to warm, it can just be added to this article without changing anything, and no need to create a new page. Like how Fuzchia was saying this isn't the end of the floods, we are more then likely going to see more, and maybe changing it to "2022-2023 Western US Floods" might make sense as this record snow pack melts, as we are probally going to have more floods not just in California. 104.218.156.198 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only per above, but weren't there some considerable rain storms in February? I think all of what is happening could become more significant if more damage is reported. That being said. I do think the name of this article should have a start date of December 2022, perhaps December 2022–ongoing California floodsConyo14 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At the very least some information about the March floods should be merged into this comprehensive article covering all floods between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023 in California. While it's possible to leave the March article as a subtopic article of this one, I think it has too little content to warrant that. A section in this one is fine. But please note if any one flood has enough good content to warrant its own separate article, just make it a subtopic with a reference here. --В²C☎04:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that the crazy winter we had in the west has been melting now, and these resent monsoonal rains should we include more info about the flooding that is currently happening in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, and of course California, and possibly change the name to 2022-2023 Western US floods? 104.218.156.198 (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § 2022-2023 California floods Tails Wx 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
