Talk:Hurricane mitigation

Merge
This article should be called hurricane preparedness. There is already an article there, which is basically just like this one but generally not as good. Thus we should merge them together. Also it should eventually be renamed as tropical cyclone preparedness and be less U.S.-centric. — jdorje (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the preparedness and the mitigation articles is that the mitigation focuses on purpose designed products, systems and required governmental action. I agree there are similarities, but at issue here is a new and burgeoning industry of manufacturers and contractors who exist to provide goods and services to storm-proof buildings. This sector is in its infancy and it requires some specific governmental action to enable it to really help people who right now cannot get hurricane insurance for their homes. I think that the two articles should be linked but to merge them would diffuse two very different issues.--Achim 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But...there is only one issue, that of being prepared for a hurricane strike. — jdorje (talk)

Agreed, AND, what government and a burgeoning hurricane mitigation INDUSTRY must do, is quite different. What good does it do for the person who is looking up how to hurricane proof a building, when he or she sees what the government and the industry really ought to be doing - on the SAME PAGE? I agree that both ought to be linked but to merge them would make the whole thing so unwieldy, nobody would get to the bottom of any of these pages. Apart from that, there is a big pink elephant here. Right now, in 2006, nobody can get hurricane insurance. That means, once again, people will have to evacuate and realise that they will possibly be headed into economic underground. Bankruptcy laws have been eroded in the US for private individuals. They will still owe on buildings that are totaled or not even there anymore. Wherever they go and then legally show up to take a job somewhere, the creditors may find them. You can't sell a broken house like that.--Achim 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what any of that has to do with article organization. The two articles should be merged.  The two topics can be covered in separate subsections of the article.  But as it is, if you add hurricane preparedness and hurricane mitigation as the 'see also' for an article, I would not know which is which and neither would anyone else.  There is no way to distinguish the two, unless you want to have separate articles hurricane preparedness (personal) and hurricane preparedness (governent) which seems quite overkill.  And if you look at hurricane preparedness for New Orleans you will see that it is mostly about (what you call) "hurricane mitigation". — jdorje (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is by now a stand-alone term that defines a new industry. It is in common use. Similarly, "fireproofing" is a ridiculous term. Nothing is totally immune to the effects of fire of sufficient duration or intensity. Still, it's an industry and it is a term that is by now defined within the National MasterFormat, both by government and industry. Who is really served, apart from you, if you merge it all under tropical cyclone preparedness and then it's so long that nobody gets to the bottom of it? What do you hope to get out of that?--Achim 05:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC


 * The purpose of the merge would be to help people find information that they are looking for. As I said above, the two terms are practically indistinguishable to the lay person, and neither article is so long on its own as to prevent a merger. — jdorje (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you absorbed what I wrote. You keep saying the same things over and over. So, what do you want to do, keep adding on to this to get the last word or just overrule me and merge the two despite what I've said? Have you even looked into what I've written? There's a burgeoning industry here....--Achim 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And you too keep replying with the exact same answer, which I keep saying doesn't matter. To me, this is not a matter of technical precision but of helping readers to find the information they are looking for.  With the current setup the average reader will become very confused as to why there are two articles with basically the same name.  It does not matter that there is a "burgeoning industry"; wikipedia is not here to promote an industry.  It does matter that "hurricane mitigation" is an industry-standard term (btw such a claim should be stated in the article, and sourced), but this must be weighted against what the average reader thinks the term will mean.  In my opinion the ideal organization is with both mitigation and preparedness as sub-sections of a single article, with redirects to it.  The introduction to that article can then explain the different between the two of them - something that the average reader will badly need. — jdorje (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you win. I'll do the toil. We'll see what you think. I'm cobbling it together right now in Word and then I'll put it into the preparedness section. The automatic redirect I don't know how to do though. I'll leave that up to you. :-)--Achim 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is still lots of toil left as the new hurricane preparedness article leaves much to be desired. I made some structural changes and commented on what's next to do on that talk page. — jdorje (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)