Talk:Holmfirth floods

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Holmfirth floods is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why was this article created? Its just duplicating information and therefore not required. It can't really be expanded into a larger article. The flooding incidents in Holmfirth are sufficiently covered in the Holmfirth article, with supporting links. The information here may have been better used to expand the flooding section of the Holmfirth article. Richard Harvey 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holmfirth Flood affected a wider area than just Holmfirth and the event is notable in its own right. Adambro 07:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get me wrong! I know it affected a wider area, my grandparents were just one of the families caught up in the 1944 flood, and the two floods are events worth telling. However if this is to become an article in its own right then it needs to cover more than just the Holmfirth area. It needs to be expanded to put in information detailing its effects, damage, lives affected in Thongsbridge, Brockholes, Honley and Berry Brow, Armitage Bridge and Lockwood. A considerable amount of larger articles, containing much greater detail than this one have already been merged together, so to remain viable it needs to become more than a simple stub. There is a considerable amount that can be written on the various aspects of the event, however it is well covered on the HUDDERSFIELD ONE website. Therefore without virtually ripping that website to Wikipedia I fail to see how the article can be expanded. Richard Harvey 09:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my intention to expand the article as you have suggested but I am hoping to be able to make use of a number of sources. I'm not convinced though that it needs to "become more than a simple stub" to justify it being a distinct article but appreciate the point you are making. As I've said, I will be making further contributions to the article but would appreciate any help you are able to provide. Thanks. I might slim down the text about the floods on the Holmfirth page, once this page is too an appropriate level. Adambro 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be a good idea, as an admin mentioned to me the other day that the Holmfirth article is so thin it can't afford to lose any main body text. :) :) Richard Harvey 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "flood"

Please note:

There has been an on-going controversy on the capitalization of words in a title that normally are not capitalized. With few exceptions the word flood is not capitalized throughout Wikipedia as evidenced at [[Category:Floods]] and [[Category:Floods in the United States]]. [[Category:Floods in Canada]] list 19 like named titles (flood used in the title not as a first word or proper noun) and of these 6 capitalize "flood".

Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization states, "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles.". Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format states, "Use lowercase, except for proper names". This supposedly narrows the criteria to determining if a word is part of such a "proper noun" or named as such as provided by reliable sources as the common name. the word "flood", in this instance, is clearly not part of a proper noun.

I am always a proponent of using the common name when possible (exceptions for avoiding ambiguity) otherwise policy and title consistency should be followed. Otr500 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23rd most serious?

...it says. This comes at 176th position in List of deadliest floods‎, and I see that the claim is 23rd for "floods and landslides", but is it really credible that there were no landslides in 153 of the most serious flooding disasters? Could it me meant to be "floods caused by a dam collapse"?? Well, I think that without some credible references this would be better deleted. Comments? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holmfirth floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625093134/http://www.huddersfield1.co.uk/huddersfield/holmfirthflood/ to http://www.huddersfield1.co.uk/huddersfield/holmfirthflood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holmfirth floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic articles and documents

In the run up to the 175th anniversary (in 2027) of the 1852 Flood, a project has been started on Huddersfield Exposed to make historic materials (transcriptions of newspaper articles, journal articles, books, etc) available online in the hope that it will renew local interest in the event and spark further research. Enid Minter has kindly granted permission for the book "On the Trail of the Holmfirth Flood 1852", which she co-wrote with her late husband, to be scanned and made freely available online, so I've added in a link to the existing "further reading" entry. If anyone wants to add further links to books, there are a handful of other publications about the 1852 Flood: https://huddersfield.exposed/wiki/Category:Books_about_the_Holmfirth_Flood_of_1852

The figure of 81 deaths for the 1852 Flood possibly needs a caveat as the figure was arrived at by combining the number of known named victims (78) with the number of children's bodies (3) buried as "unknown"s -- 1 or 2 of the latter are very likely amongst the 78 as not all of the children in that list can be accounted for (i.e. they have no burial record and were not named as being identified at the inquest). None of the contemporary records from 1852 give an exact number for the dead and phrasing such as "upwards of 80" are common. The building of the Holmfirth Flood Monumental Almshouses in 1856 seems to be the first time the figure of "81" was given as an official total. Davepattern (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1944 Flood

I'm not convinced the claim "it was not widely reported" in the press stands up to scrutiny. The Times and Daily Mail reported on the damage caused in the North of England ("More than £1,000,000 worth of damage was done to industrial plants, people's homes, roads, railways, bridges, and agricultural land") and that four people were killed. The Guardian covered it on 30 May and reported on the three people killed in the Holme Valley. It was widely reported in local newspapers up and down the country, leading to donations being sent to the Holmfirth Flood Relief Fund. Davepattern (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]