Talk:1966 flood of the Arno

Deletion

Please do not delete this page. I am in the process of writing it for a graduate school class assignment and will be gradually working on it over the course of the next couple months. Thank you.

--Funchion 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://data.scl.utah.edu/fmi/xsl/stream/details.xsl?-recid=354&a::v=1O9iEOa749
  • In 1966 Flood of the River Arno on 2011-05-25 03:55:44, 404 Not Found
  • In 1966 Flood of the River Arno on 2011-06-06 13:20:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.comune.firenze.it/servizi_pubblici/ambiente/acqua/ciclo/Inglese/1BILenglish.htm
  • In 1966 Flood of the River Arno on 2011-05-25 03:55:44, 404 Not Found
  • In 1966 Flood of the River Arno on 2011-06-06 13:20:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I've moved it. Graham87 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1966 flood of the Arno. 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/20121201205345/http://www.nga.gov/podcasts/lectures/2011.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/podcasts/lectures/2011.shtm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Conservation research

Is anyone aware of recent conservation research on the success and sustainability of recovery/repair of the artworks? Has a broad survey been conducted on current conditions of the artworks? --Drabaverna (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

New additions

Hi all, I am new to Wikipedia. I have added a link to the archives of Ragghiani Foundation: https://www.fondazioneragghianti.it/en/home-en/ The archives hold papers and letters from the flood. I used these materials in my paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420919305096 which I have also cited.

Please take a moment to review these.

Many thanks, Pakhee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakheek (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note, but unfortunately I've reverted most of your edit besides the wikilink to the professor. Adding a link to your own paper is an extreme conflict of interest and is discouraged here. Also, the text you added, that people who couldn't physically be there donated money, seems like a water is wet situation. Also re the link: it's not helpful to link to a page as a reference that doesn't support any of the preceding text. I couldn't find any pages on the website that seemed vvaluable to link to from here. Graham87 06:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Graeme.

Have you read my paper? There is empirical evidence that people who could not travel, sent money to the committee. It is a relevant paper for the section I inserted it in. I understand the conflict of interest. I suggest that you add it. There should not be any barriers in exchanging knowledge in Wikipedia. This is what the site is for. I am happy for you to refer to other important findings of the paper.

If you tried exploring the Foundation's website, you'd see the relevant archives. Read: https://www.fondazioneragghianti.it/en/archives/

Copied text from the Archives Website, if you can't find it: Another series strictly connected to the MIAC, is the one named Alluvione di Firenze (Florence flood), consisting of the papers of the Comitato del Fondo Internazionale per Firenze (International Fund Committee for Florence). The series illustrates the strong adhesion of the world community to the call for fundraising and staffing, addressed by Ragghianti, for the

recovery of the cultural heritage of the city of Florence.

Please do not remove links without reading/exploring them in depth.

Best,

Pakhee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakheek (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pakhee, please sign your messages and indent your talk page replies. All I could read (and all I really want to read, frankly) is the abstract of your paper. I have only a little interest in this subject; this article is only on my Watchlist because no other experienced editors are keeping an eye on it. Re the website, that link only contains two sentences relating to the flood and most of it is unrelated to the subject. I did do a Google search for 1966 within the Fondazione Ragghianti website and did not find anything worth linking there. Links need to be highly relevant to *only* the subject of the article. Graham87 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)