Talk:Flood plain

Merge with Floodplain article[edit]

Makes sense, although any resulting article needs to cite its sources of information. The Floodplain article has no references. -- Muffuletta 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that flood plain has a longer and better edit history, perhaps a move is more suitable, and edits from floodplain can be incorporated afterwards. Daniel Collins 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree that flood plain ought to be the surviving article, both for the reasons cited by Daniel Collins and because I think that "flood plain" is a better usage than "floodplain." Cuppysfriend 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merge Ballista 04:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. Floodplain sounds american.

Please merge. Since the 1980s, applicable U.S. government agencies and American professional societies have used "floodplain" much more frequently than "flood plain". 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. The two terms mean essentially the same thing. One should become a redirect to the other. ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 08:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing up the two terms[edit]

If you ignore the sampling bias, "floodplain" gets 4877 and 6910000 hits from Web of Science (an academic search engine) and from Google, respectively; "flood plain" gets 1197 and 3140000 hits respectively. (Bear in mind that the majority of English speaking webpages are American, and I think the majority of relevant academic journals are as well.) The difference is just over a factor of two, not an order of magnitude which would be the clear decider for me.

Looking at my collection of [mainly academic] books, taking note of the nationality of the writers, "flood plain" appears to be used in UK, "floodplain" in NZ, and both seem to be used in the US, but it looks like "floodplain" is gaining in popularity there judging by the date of publication. In a book writen by continental Europeans, "floodplain" was adopted.

The Webster-Merriam Dictionary uses "floodplain". The Oxford English Dictionary online uses "flood-plain", but this entry seems to be out of date online.

The edit history for "flood plain" is a matter on months older, and a matter of edits longer, than that of "floodplain", whose edits actually includes plenty of inconsequential edits. Neither article stands out above the otehr in terms of quality.

So, it's not clear cut to me which is the more appropriate term based on international usage. I'd say any intro must delineate both. I think it's important to have a balance of usages across WP, reflecting the balance in actual English usage (what's the policy on this?), so I wouldn't resort to the WoS of Google metrics as the decider. I expect "flood plain" will continue to fade from usage, but I suggest it be the one used here, for now, based on WP activity. And I say that as a technical user of "floodplain".

Daniel Collins 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floodplain (one word) is a commonly enough used and understood term in the UK, and should be the one used here. Ghmyrtle 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I work in floodplain management in the US, and our (State) agency uses "floodplain," as do most Federal Emergency Management Agency programs (FEMA runs the Nat'l Flood Insurance Program and publishes flood maps and other info.). I'd go for a redirect from flood plain to floodplain, myself. Lonotter 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's enough here to make floodplain the winner. Daniel Collins 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]