Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods: Difference between revisions

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2022. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

I am asking for everyone’s opinion on whether or not the Kentucky section should be split into its own article. I already have a draft started. @Hurricanehink @WeatherWriter @ChessEric @GeorgeMemulous @TornadoLGS @Sir MemeGod 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don’t see why not. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not quite yet. Add meteorological history and damage total, and perhaps retitle it (since it covers more than just Kentucky), but it’s close. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I dis put on the draft talk that there still needs work done to it before publishing. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have fixed the above issues that @Hurricanehink pointed out. May still need some work and the damage total might need refining pending additional information; but it’s off to a good start I think. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The draft is probably ready for publishing. However; since I have already started this discussion, I am going to hold off on publishing the draft until after we know the results of this discussion. Since the draft is technically a split from this article. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And ps. I am interpreting @Hurricanehink‘s “oppose” as a “wait” vote based on the rationale given. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I said on the draft page that it’s good to publish the article, so go ahead. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You think we need to close this discussion? 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what it seems to me, this article is about two different periods of flooding, one in late July and early August and the other in late August, with two or three weeks in between. They also affect mostly different states, with only Mississippi being affected by both, while the first flood also affected Arizona, California, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the second flood also affected Texas and Utah, so it seems unlikely that residual ground saturation was a significant factor (although even if it was, there would still be precedent for splitting, e.g., September 2023 southwestern U.S. floods is in a different page from Hurricane Hilary). I therefore proposed that this article be split into Late July–early August 2022 United States floods and Late August 2022 United States floods or similar titles. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 06:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the article is a bit unclear what the focus is. There is 2022 Appalachian floods already, so the main element of the existing article is the summer monsoonal floods over the western US, plus the Texas floods, Missisppi floods, and Illinois. It could be more useful having 2022 floods in the United States, and other yearly flood articles, to cover less significant flood events, than having an overview article like this, with a bunch of random events. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not opposed to implementing your idea in addition, but in this case, the first round of flooding and the second round of flooding each seems to have enough different sources to indicate that it has received enough coverage to justify an article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 18:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By “first round of flooding”, do you mean the western US floods? The met history portion of the article talks about it being the monsoon, so if it were to be split off, I’d rather something like the 2022 western United States monsoonal flooding. This article mentions how the 2022 monsoon was the 9th wettest on record, and this mentions the effects in Arizona. So I could see a split working. Likewise, the Missouri floods seem to be contained enough to be its own event, as evidenced by this NWS report. The August 2 Mississsippi flood doesn’t seem notable enough on its own, as that’s a separate event from the floods that caused the Jackson, Mississippi water crisis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the flooding in late July (continuing in some places into early August). This includes some western states like California but also some eastern states like West Virginia, which had a state of emergency declared by the governor on July 28th. I agree that that NWS page portrays the St. Louis area flood as individually important enough to have its own article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, and it’s why I think yearly US flood articles would be better, for some of these lesser notable floods, and to stop big articles like this one from covering a lot of topics that are only loosely related. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although this isn’t exactly what you were referring to, there is Floods in the United States (2000–present), which the non-notable Mississippi flood could be merged to in case it doesn’t fit into any of the pages that we create. Here is one possible way to split things, merging the rest to Floods in the United States (2000–present).

• Late July-early August flooding in California, Arizona, and Las Vegas Valley
• Late July flooding in Missouri, western Illinois, and Kentucky
• Late August flooding in Utah, Texas, and Mississippi, assuming that that was all caused by the same storm system

Does this seem good to you? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 07:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, was the Utah/Texas/Kentucky event all from the same system? If so then I agree with the split. And yes, there’s a big US flood list since 2000, I forgot about that, but it could be useful having yearly flood articles in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the NWS’s daily weather maps from August 19th to August 26th suggests that the answer is yes. This admittedly probably counts as synthesis, but I think that it’s still fine to use this to assist in judgements about whether or not these belong in the same page as long as we don’t explicitly state that in the article without better sourcing because they have temporal proximity anyway, so this wouldn’t be the only factor in that decision. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 08:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]