Talk:2022–2023 California floods

Year should not be abbreviated

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)

Deadliest of 2023 so far?

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)

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)

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)

If you believe that statement violates the no original research policy, then a discussion should be started since you would be saying Template:Deadliest meteorological events in 2023 violates the policy as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats WP:POINTy. The template itself is fine since it compares events as covered by sources. But we shouldn’t extrapolate that in text. Having said that I will take this to the WP:ORN. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § 2022-2023 California floods Tails Wx 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If the template is fine, then why is it not allowed to be stated in the article? Just saying… Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2023

2022–2023 California floods → December 2022–January 2023 California floods – The article makes it sound like it covers all floods in California in 2022 and 2023. There are currently the March 2023 California floods, and that plus the floods in California in July/august 2022 make me skeptical to believe this is truly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of all floods in California from 2022 to 2023. 100.12.169.218 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

Fettlemap (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

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)

• 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)

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)