Talk:2022 Dallas floods

Start Date (21 or 22)
Wanted to get some opinions on if the start date should be August 21 or August 22. In the Impacts section of the article, information about the extreme rainfall (record rainfall) occurred late on August 21. reverted the lead to only say the floods occurred on August 22. Subsequently, I changed the infobox to only August 22. Should the article only contain information from August 22 (meaning the 1 hour record rainfall at DFW Airport will be removed) or include August 21-22? Limiting to August 22 would mean the WPC outlook map for the 21st should be removed as well as the flood infobox image as it was released at 9 AM on the 22nd and covers a 12-hour rainfall total, which means it has data from August 21st. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest keeping August 21–22 as the dates for the flooding due to NWS releasing information about the extreme rainfall (DFW Airport 1-hour rainfall record) from the evening on August 21st. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You edited the article to say "On August 21–21, 2022...", which is incorrect and makes no sense. United States Man (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are also the one who switched it the lead to just August 22.. Either way, I just put “Starting on August 21…”, so that should solve that problem. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

July–August 2022 United States floods
If the event in Mississippi this morning becomes notable enough for an article, how do you feel about combining this and that into the parent article? It is still August so it would still fit the title. Maybe also include more stuff about the Death Valley flooding that was after August 2, as well as the recent flooding death in (I think) Zion National Park. United States Man (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, but some of the other floods in the last 2-3 weeks should also probably be included to just balance the articles timeline out. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes absolutely. United States Man (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So will this be happening, ? 134.6.57.27 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do it. United States Man (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just wanted to say that I don't exactly agree with the move. I understand there's not much we can do about it now anymore since the article was already merged. How come there was no merge proposal put out? But anyways, I disagree with the move because I believe that the page July-August 2022 United States floods should only have the flood events that happened in the Midwest from July-early August 2022, as those flood events were all part of the same storm system. I already raised this concern a few weeks ago but nobody did anything much about it. The other flood events, like the Southwest/Death Valley floods, should be moved out to other different pages. I proposed that the Southwest/Death Valley floods should be moved to the page Floods in the United States (2000–present) as they were less significant than the other flood events but still significant enough to be included on Wikipedia. And I think the Dallas/Mississippi floods should be put on a separate page, as combining them into the bigger article is greatly limiting the scope of those two events. Plus these two flood events were also part of the same storm system which is why I think they should be on a separate page. I understand there's not much that can be done about it now, but I just wanted to share my voice and opinion and see what you guys think about this. Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC).
 * The article is appropriately named "July–August" so all floods in the country are welcome to be included. Making a bunch of different articles that will be doomed to be stubs because of lack on contribution from others (because I seem to have written the vast majority of the whole thing) will result in less people seeing any of the information (because the average reader will likely not be clicking from article to article). Having information in one place is best. United States Man (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well the reason I believe that they should be split up is because we are putting completely different, unrelated events into one article. The only connection they have is that they all occurred in the same year or the same summer. However, I've never seen an article in Wikipedia like this before.
 * One example I can give as to why they should be split up is October 2015. In October 2015, there were three separate flood events that occurred in the United States. One was in early October, in the Carolinas from October 1-5. Another was Death Valley and Los Angeles County in mid-October. The last was in Texas and the Southern Plains in late October due to Hurricane Patricia. However, we did not all put them together in one page called October 2015 United States floods. The Carolina floods had its own separate page, while the Texas one had its own page, and the Death Valley/SoCal one is not on Wikipedia yet, but someone could create a page about it if possible. If we had all put them together in one page, then we would have had less material for each event, since having them on one page means we would have to compress the amount described for each event in order to have a decent article size. So I just wanted you to consider this and to see what your opinion/view is on this issue. Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already stated my opinion on this. No need to keep asking. United States Man (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What do you think about this? EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I guess I may not have read the whole response you posted for some reason. Seems like you added something later on to your response which I missed. Maybe we can consider it/look at it a later date, especially when/if more people start adding material to that page. I consider them to be different topics so I would prefer putting them on different pages, but maybe we can wait till people start adding more stuff to that page and to the different topics. I'm just going to leave it alone then for now and not worry about it/this stuff much right now. Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)