Jump to content

Talk:2010–2011 Queensland floods/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article title

I moved the page from December 2010 Queensland floods to December 2010 / January 2011 Queensland floods. I'm not sure the spaced forward slash works but the title needed to be changed to something other than December 2010 sharpish. Please change if something better can be found. Ericoides (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It could possibly be named Queensland Floods 2010-2011? It's only a suggestion. Adamdaley (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest 2010–2011 Queensland floods. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Which: 2010-2011 Queensland Floods or Queensland Floods 2010-2011??? Adamdaley (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The one I posted immediately underneath. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article accurarcy regarding situation in Rockhampton

Article accuracy

As of 11:40 am Tues. 4/1/11 some of the information in the article is not accurate for Rockhampton. The airport's control tower (not the terminal)has a temporary portable flood barrier around it so that it can continue to control flights in this area (helicopters there, and to a new helo 'base' at the 'Heritage Village' on the north side of the city). The city of Rockhampton has NOT been entirely cut off by road as vehicles can still come in and go out by the northern Bruce Highway (which goes to Mackay and points north). It currently is NOT expected that this highway link will be cut. The information for these points comes from personal knowledge (e.g., airport) and from ABC (Australia) local radio coverage this morning, including reports by the Rockhampton Regional Council Mayor following the Disaster Management Group meeting this morning. Much of the national media coverage has been overly sensational for the situation in Rockhampton, as few areas where people live are directly affected by the flood at this stage, and most areas within the city are NOT expected to be affected by the predicted flood heights. In the flood affected areas (where water has reached houses, etc.), many people are accustomed to flooding by the Fitzroy River and have a range of coping mechanisms in place. This morning only 75 people were reported to be in the Evacuation Centre that has been set up at the CQUniversity Sports Centre, though many more people have evacuated their homes and have relocated with family, friends, or in other accommodation. [1] 124.185.177.175 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)EKD

Coal

According to the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, one of the international ramifications of this disaster is a major reduction in coal, including nearly half the worlds coking cole (for steel production). This was mentioned on ABC's 7:30 report on Monday, 4th Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.168.222 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

QLD supplies 2/3 of the worlds coking coal... http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-1-Anglo-American-declares-force-majeure-on--CM5JP?OpenDocument&src=mp So what's the global impact of steel? KymFarnik (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Government relief funds

I contributed a short paragraph about government relief funding that has become available. I may not of got it correct because it is a little confusing. Can someone else verify and further clarify what I have added about this? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The first disaster relief payments were made available on December 6, 2010. I'm a little confused by the dates in this article. The background section of the article seems to indicate that the flooding was the result of a monsoonal trough that occured on December 24, 2010. However, on December 6, Neil Roberts, the Qld Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services, issued a media release activating disaster relief and recovery arrangement for 11 shires in central and south-western Queensland. The media release cited the Premier, stating:
"In recent days we have seen heavy rainfall across central and south-western Queensland causing damage to essential public assets like roads and bridges. The current damage estimate is $151 million, but this figure could increase in the coming days and weeks as more damage is identified."
Subsequent media releases were issued on December 10, December 22(a), December 22(b), December 24, December 29(a), December 29(b), and December 30. More media releases were issued in 2011 and can be found here. So, surely there was a 'problem' before Tropical Cyclone Tasha (2010) hit our fatal shores on December 24. I'm not denying that Tasha contributed, but was she the real CAUSE? Any suggestions? Jherschel (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Tasha was not the whole cause of the flooding. The BoM just today issued a special climate statement on the flooding. According to them, There were four major rain events during late November and December, concentrated on the periods 28 November to 3 December, 7 to 13 December, 19 to 20 December and 23 to 28 December."Jason Rees (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jason. A good find! Do you want to add the four major rain events to the background? As it appears now, Tasha (just one of those events) is given a little too credit for the damage. Jherschel (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ill see what i can do tomorrow.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that this article is about the rainy period from 23 to 28 December. I assume ground saturation from the other rain events would of contributed to these floods, although the BoM climate statement doesn't use those words, instead using pre-existing wet conditions. Warm sea surface temperatures appear to be a significant factor. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought this article was about the Queensland floods of 2010-2011, the reasons as to how they occured, the extent, and the response - not some "rainy period" - otherwise, perhaps the article name should be changed. I notice there is no mention of deaths as a result of floods, now standing at 11 as at January 9, 2011 - according to this Courier Mail article. Jherschel (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the inclusion of recent events along the Mary River? I would agree because they were not caused by the same weather events that caused the flooding which the rest of the article covers. And yes there is still lots to include and clear up. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The flooding that is occurring in Queensland as we speak is absolutely related to the same floods that occurred the week before. The same general weather pattern and the same sodden ground is causing the same result. Even if I was to accept your argument about the scope of this article for a second (and I don't), the St George flood was caused by the rain falling on the specific days you mention so your removal of that is entirely inexplicable. Unless you want separate articles for every time a river rises over the past month, this article is the place for this general flooding phenomenon taking place in Queensland and north western NSW. The narrow scope you wish to apply to this article is unworkable in practice. I note waters are rising at Dalby and Condamine again, leading to evacuations. Should this also lead to the creation of a new article or it is easier, simpler and better for our readers to apply some common sense and include this in the scope of this article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way is fine. If we are going to include all recent Queensland flooding please ensure the rest of the article doesn't have conflicting statements and includes a wider scope. Alternatively including Mary River floods on the Mary River page would be viable. Flooding in St George and Surat should be included but using reports after the event, without speculation. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the tone of the previous comment. The ABC are reporting it as a week long flood crisis. With the speculation, that is just a matter of updating as flood waters peak and move on. I don't think is speculation to report on official BoM flood height predictions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Events

I know that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a discussion board, but the problem is we have 30 underwater suburbs of people being told to evacuate, and flash flooding about to hit the CBD. Brisbane needs a place on the web - that can handle the traffic - in order to organise basic things like food, housing, and transport over the next few days.

If you want to call that a 'discussion board' and say that wikipedia is more interested in editorial standards than helping people, then by all means keep reversing out the changes like the lists of EVACUATION CENTERS and links to the few discussion boards that have not folded under the strain.

Otherwise I am going to sit here and keep reversing your changes until the flood waters fall, or until I loose power and my internet connection.

JediJeremy (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, your edits are out-of-scope for wikipedia. We are explicitly not here as a coordination site for off-wiki non-wiki-related activities, we're not even a news site. DMacks (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane CBD Evacuation

I've just had a revision ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods&oldid=407219070 ) reverted, and I'm confused why. User:Mattinbgn suggests "Undid revision 407219070 by BenJWoodcroft (talk) restoring sourced info replaced by unsourced info. Talk pg if you think source wron". I can see nowhere in that ABC article that says the CBD was evacuated. Secondly, I added a source from the QLD Police saying that it wasn't evacuated. So how am I replacing it with unsourced info, when I seem to have provided a source? BenJWoodcroft (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not considered a reliable source. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't find another source, and it's the police's facebook. So why wouldn't it be reliable? BenJWoodcroft (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you added this edit. Note " ... though many individual businesses let their staff off work for the day, even extending into tomorrow[citation needed]" Now looking at the source supporting the information you deleted I see "Buildings in Fortitude Valley and businesses at Eagle Street Pier in the city are also being evacuated" Eagle Street is in the Brisbane CBD last I checked, hence evacuations are taking place in the Brisbane CBD. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I found a source; I just googled "brisbane central business district evacuated" and there they are. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699091 for example. You can go to WP:SPS for more info on why Facebook is not considered a reliable source. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"Eagle Street is in the Brisbane CBD". OK, sorry, I misread that article and I guess I'm not used to thinking about the CBD as including Eagle St., just out of (wrong) experience. Still, the referencing troubles me. Firstly, I'd rather source the police than a journalist, because they seem more trustworthy (though in this case both are right - the police info went out of date rather than being wrong in the first place). And I'll cite that info about the day off. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Diannna: Actually why is Facebook a WP:SPS self published source? I'm not publishing it - that was the police. I don't see why if the police use facebook instead of their own site that makes any difference here. Perhaps you could enlighten me - is there a page somewhere that details specifically about facebook and why it isn't considered a reliable source? The links in your reply don't seem to provide enough detail in this circumstance that I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJWoodcroft (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In a natural disaster, there is danger from adding poorly sourced information to the related article. Incorrect information such as fake or mistaken evacuation warnings, or wrong evacuation routes could cause people to leave a place of relative safety and go in harms way, while incorrect reassurances could lead people not to evacuate. There are vandals who would post false information. Link to official sites in every case. We should not be posting "The latest official announcements" with the idea that people will take immediate safety related emergency actions based on the postings, since such a warning could become stale even if it was once correct. Link to official sites, and let them be updated. Edison (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing individual deaths

Hi, just wanted to confirm... should we be really listing death of each individual person. I think the table should only specify the total number of people who died in certain way (e.g. drowning), number of deaths by town, area etc.Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

With other disaster articles, we never list the name of the deceased (WP:MEMORIAL), and when there are dozens of deaths, it's usually only subdivided by region. Given all of the deaths were in a single province, I don't think even that is needed. I think it'd work better in prose, maybe subdivided by method of death. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
At the rate it's rising now, a solution is likely needed very soon. The flooding in Toowoomba is believed to have claimed a minimum of 24 lives. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I proseified it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A nice clean up job - thank you! Active Banana (bananaphone 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the likelihood of a large chunk of the missing being found dead now that rescuers are able to get back into Lockyer Valley communities like Grantham etc. it would soon have become unworkable anyway. I would suggest that the deaths from rising waters from last week should be reported separately from those caused by the discrete event of the "inland tsunami" of 10 January. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 120.151.116.3, 11 January 2011

 Not done 

The extreme weather patterns in Brisbane will force the closure of Brisbane Airport 
over the next few days from January 13th, 2011.

120.151.116.3 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotta source? Active Banana (bananaphone 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

Hi all. I am a new to Wikipedia, encouraged to contribute through my studies. I decided to build on the backgound for this page and came up with the following summary of info from the BOM site:

The flooding has been a result from an unusually strong La nina event (1). The Australian Bureau of Meteorology reported 2010 as the wettest spring on record since 1900 with an average rainfall across the state of 248.2mm; almost triple the state average of 84.3mm. New rainfall records were set in 30.4% of the state (2). Following these wet spring conditions, December 2010 was also the wettest on record, with high rainfall totals set in 107 locations for the month. The state average rainfall level of 209.45mm smashed the previous record of 200.1mm set in 1975 (3).

(1) La Niña persists Issued on Wednesday 5 January 2011 - Product Code IDCKGEWWOO, viewed 12 January 2011 (2) in spring 2010: The wettest spring Wednesday, 1 December 2010 - Product code IDCKGC14R0, viewed 12 January 2011 (3) in December 2010: The wettest December on record Monthly Climate Summary for Queensland, 4 January 2011 - Product code IDCKGC24R0, viewed 12 January 2011

As an unconfirmed user I can't post this to the article. If someone could please edit and merge this into the background section on my behalf, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benforward85 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not certain that many of those claims are directly relavant to the article without violating WP:SYN - wikipedia editors taking facts and analysing them and coming up with the conclusion that they affected the floods. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The following has come from the Very Extensive Flooding section of the 3rd source as cited and could be added also: This long period of heavy rainfall over Queensland river catchments culminated in the extensive flooding across the state (3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benforward85 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bolding the title

There is no official or commonly accepted name for this disaster and the current name of the article is a Wikipedia convention only. With that in mind can we please stop bolding the title. It is unnecessary, smacks of original research and implied to readers that this is the name of the subject. Thank you. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Economic Damages

The 2011 Brisbane flood has been projected to slash $13 billion (AUD) from the economy as a result of lost productivity, infrastructure damages, and further costs. The Australian Government is expected to cover between 50-75% of these costs in attempt to rebuild infrastructures. The State Government costs are calculated to be around $2.5 billion (AUD) with the Queensland Treasury Corporation required to issue further bonds for repairs (financial aid). [2] Editor261 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NASA satellite image is useless

The NASA satellite image is useless. The NASA satellite image shows some cloud cover of Queensland. It doesn't show excess cloud cover. Does it show heavy rain clouds? There is no supporting information. It is meant to show widened rivers? No point of reference, so I don't know how widened. -- CraigKeogh (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The image is boring, looks like abstract art and is interesting only to meteorologists. I have replaced it with a more relevant and interesting photo. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
re-added the image in the extent section. I think putting at least one satellite image is useful.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Map

I am clueless about these things but it would not seem too difficult for someone who knows how to create maps to build one showing the flooded rivers (Fitzroy and tribs, Burnett and tribs and Condamine/Balonne and tribs) and the affected towns (Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Dalby etc.). Any takers? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking just the same. A map would make understanding much easier.--Zamp-Ru (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Overseas sources and other issues

Please refrain from using overseas news as sources, since most of these are in fact way out of date or just plain incorrect. Local (Australian) sources should be used. Also the death toll is 30 (13, and growing from the current event) which includes the death of a man in his 50s in Ipswich. So please take extreme care when updating the figures and please do not add a table until we get a better idea on the death toll. Bidgee (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? The US NWS uses satellites and such, not to mention there is a US NASA tracking station in OZ.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue is more about using news sources from outside Aust. which are often reporting on events from third hand information. This is not a criticism of overseas news sources, these problems are inevitable when covering a story from such a distance away. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos

No doubt its going to be difficult to have photos of the areas which are having the major flooding but I have found four photos (under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) but not sure if they will suit the article or not but three photos taken in Warwick are here and one also from Warwick. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a few better photos on Flickr now but none with a totally free licence. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A satellite image would be awesome. Apparently, its covering an area bigger than France and Germany.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded 4 images to wikimedia. I had the challenging task of driving from Canberra to Townsville and without a high-clearance vehicle probably wouldn't have made it. These photos were before the worst of it - I wouldn't have got out if I had tried a few days later. Images are at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sweetbixkid Sweetbixkid (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff. I know the area well and I am amazed by the amount of water in those photos and photos I have seen elsewhere. I still can't believe the Burnett River topped the Dimitrios Bridge at Mundubbera! Note that the Boyne River does not cross the Burnett Highway, the road in that picture is the Mundubbera-Durong Road. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Rechecking in Google Maps, you are correct. I will update the photo description if possible. I have never done so many flood crossings ever before. I was stunned to hear a few days later that they had evacuated some people from Gayndah and that the water must have come up over the bank and be reaching the bridge where I took the photo! Sweetbixkid (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah..I see you've done it. Cheers Sweetbixkid (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the image to reflect the road. Fantastic photos too, I am wishing in a way I had of moved to Rockhampton a few years ago! Bidgee (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How about you move to Rocky, now? :-) Jherschel (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this can be used on Wikipedia or if it would fit in the Article but BoM has a good map graphic - http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/index.shtml CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dams

It might be worthwhile to go around the articles for the various Queensland dams and update them to reflect current conditions, many of them are overflowing due to the heavy rainfall, but the descriptions do not reflect this. Also it might be worthwhile to include a section discussing the low dam levels in previous years to this article. The refilling of the dams is being exploited for political gain.Graham1973 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether the refilling of the dams is being exploited for political gain is not an issue we should be concerned about here. Per WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX, it is not the role of Wikipedia to counter political arguments made by others. We tread on dangerous ground if we try. I am not sure how a discussion of low dam levels in the recent past is relevant here either. Turning this article into another climate change battleground does not strike me as wise. There are whole articles set aside for that. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tasha merge?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice there is an article on Tropical Cyclone Tasha (2010), and it appears there is some overlap. That storm was certainly a cause of the flooding, among others. The cyclone article tries to claim a damage total of over $1 billion, but seeing as it's the larger flooding event in general, I think it would be better for that content to be here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not support a merge. There is sufficient third party material to make each article easily satisfy WP:N for a stand alone article. Once the current rate of new information starts to slow down, the content of each article can be addressed with the community deciding that the details of X aspect belong in Y article with a summary in article Z, while the details about topic W belong in Z with a summary in Y. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not about notability. It's how much redundancy there is between Tasha's article and this one. I checked out the sources in the Tasha article. The damage total doesn't mention the cyclone at all, and neither does the death mentioned in the article. However, there is certainly some good content that would be good in the broader flooding article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If there are some obvious cases of overlap and one article being more clearly the appropriate "home" of the content, feel free to start a clean up. I have found though in cases of breaking news extensive cleanup attempts are generally better left for after the event or you end up spending a lot of time repeating and repeating and repeating your work. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, fair point. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is isolating the amounts that Tasha caused and the amounts the rest of the disaster caused, making the damage numbers difficult to assess. Still, the storm itself probably warrants an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the floods on TV for the last few days and TV here has continuous coverage so I've seen a lot. This is actually the first time I've heard that there was a Cyclone. Every mention of the cause of the floods has been "heavy rains". If the media doesn't consider the cyclone of sigificance in regards to the floods then the cyclone article should be kept separate.Wayne (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The cyclone played a significant part in worsening the floods, though due to its weak nature, the storm itself wasn't really of much note. Rather, the rains it produced were. Significant flooding is directly attributable to Tasha, including the floods in Chinchilla, Dalby and Theodore. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the Q'land floods are obviously the worst aspect, there are ongoing, widespread floods across much of eastern Australia. I'm in south-west Victoria, where we're currently getting steady, torrential rain and there's floods happening not far away to our west and north, in Victoria. If that's caused by a tropical cyclone I'll be surprised. The cyclone may be a factor overall, but it's gotta be part of a much larger weather system that's affecting the continent. So a merge doesn't look right to me. 121.214.129.195 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Warnings and phone#

Why delete information to flood warnings and the SES number? People are talking about a 7 metre high wall of water coming and police are saying they need to evaculate in low lying areas near the brisbane river and you are deleting the SES number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.23.143 (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an emergency alert system. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done Banana. Nothing like a stickler in the face of serious adversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.124.4 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Banana 1. Wikipedia is not a phone directory. 2. Who looks phone numbers up on wikipedia when faced with a wall of water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.92.19 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation QUEENSLAND FLOOD ASSIST

Details of the Australian Defence Force operation.[1] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will try and incorporate soon. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A Royal Australian Navy minesweeper will search Moreton Bay for debris.[2] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh would this be relevant?

Relevant?

75.57.125.20 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added it as an external link. It doesn't really fit in the article, but I think an external link is appropriate. It's been all over the news, and it shows the human face of the tragedy :( Adpete (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I see it's been removed. Perhaps my judgement was clouded, anyway I won't argue this either way now. Adpete (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Extent of flooded areas

You hear in the news (BBC and others) that "an area larger than France and Germany together" has been flooded. If it were taken as a literally true statement about the submerged area, it would mean half of Queensland was underwater (and the worst still to come)? Surely it means that the overall area within which there is serious flooding is about half the state, and then this area contains stretches of many miles, even scores of miles, that are not flooded? I'm bringing this up because with news events like this one people tend to rush in bits from anywhere in the news without thinking too much about their accuracy or the precise wording.Strausszek (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I first heard of this claim today and it got me suspicious right from the start. FRA+GER vs. Queensland is like 55%. However 200,000 people have been affected of 4.5 million Queensland residents and I tend to believe most people live in low-lying areas on the coast.. There is just no way this claim can be true, a hoax, created by the media for dumb people to read as a shocking title.H2ppyme (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I live in Queensland (SE corner). Our State Premier said something like "As of now, half of the state is under water" and some of our media are reporting a flood area the size of New South Wales (the next state south). I think they may mean the amount of area that has been "disaster declared" by the Government. FWIW about 1/2 of the population live in the SE corner, with the eastern coastal area generally having a much higher population density than the much vaster inland. I can say that the flooding is remarkably extensive. We have never before evacuated an entire town due to flood. LowKey (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh I perfectly understand how disasterous these floods are, but I just can not believe that the flooded area is that big. I mean, if it was that big, the number of people "affected" by it would be much bigger than 200,000.H2ppyme (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian has a good interactive map that provides an indicative picture of the size and extent of the area flooded. It can be found here. You need to roll over the comparison map in the bottom right hand corner. Jherschel (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. The map does show a large affected area but clearly it means there are local flooded streaks and spots all over that part of the state, more or less frequent or contnuous as you go - not that the entire area is or ever was underwater! Anyone who's watched the news can see it's a huge disaster anyway. The map disti8nguishes between "moderate" adn "severe" flooding which would not really make sense if the whole blue-coloured region were flooded anyway.Strausszek (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And how do we change this in the article? 55% of Queensland is not under water and has not been, but two sources still claim it is. These sources are wrong. I would be very surprised if even 10% is under water. I also want to say that actually only 200,000 people could have been affected with 55% of Queensland under water. Only about 36,000 live in nine of the LGAs (list and map) in the south west part of the state. Here is a good map of the affected places: [3] Calle Widmann (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Where in the article does it say that 55% of Queensland is underwater? The only reference to a percentage is the 75% of Queensland that has been declared a disaster area, which is true. Disaster areas are declared by Local Government Area, so even if only a small part of the LGA is affected the whole LGA will be declared as a disaster area. The use of 75% percentage is not to show how severe the floods are, but how widespread across the whole of the state. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany and France together are as large as 55% of Queensland. Calle Widmann (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
But the article does not say that 55% of Queensland is underwater, it says that an area as large as Germany and France has been affected by the floods. A town or region that is isolated by floodwaters cutting road and rail links is still affected by the floods. If you think the article as written is misleading I am happy to listen to a suggested reword. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Very good, then I can take away those two references if they are not already taken away. Calle Widmann (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently that 55% is NOT the area affected by the floods. That is the area that is inaccessable to road and rail transport (cut off by floods). The area affected exceeds that by a large margin which can be understood when you consider that the 2009 Queensland floods saw 62% of the state "underwater".Wayne (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. There is no possible way that 55% of the state is underwater now and no possible way that 62% of the state was underwater in 2009. Those claims do not pass the common sense test or a simple observation test. How is the area "affected" different from the area "underwater" plus the area "inaccessible". What sort of an "affect" do you mean? -- Mattinbgn (talk)
A few days ago I read an official Queensland state government report dated early 2010 on what can be done to mitigate future flooding. It mentions the 2009 floods and specifically states that 62% of the state was underwater at that time. From the context it likely means the percentage of the state cut off by road closures. Another source I read on the current floods stated that 55% of the state was flooded and explained that this was the area inaccessable to road and rail goods transport due to closures. I'll see if I can find the pdf.Wayne (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that our population numbers are not as seriously effected as stated above though some considerable numbers are involved. And no 55% of our state is not underwater. SteveD 13-01-11 10:54 AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.124.4 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

According to media outlets, most of Brisbane had been evacuated prior to the arrival of floods, - don't know what media source this is. Brisbane is 2million people and only a small percentage (20000 homes [4]) are directly affected by the flooding. Perhaps Brisbane areas expected to be flooded were evacuated 60.241.41.8 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About how much is or has been underwater this time? Does anyone know? Is the question irrelevant? Calle Widmann (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane City Council COP Situational Awareness Application

I've added an external link to the Brisbane City Council COP Situational Awareness Application. It may help editors get timely and accurate information regarding the extent of flooding in Brisbane. In the interests of disclosure - I'm indirectly linked to the organisation responsible for the application's creation. --Leigh (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ ABC Radio Capricornia 4/1/11
  2. ^ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/floods-to-slash-13bn-from-economy-as-inflation-becomes-a-danger/story-e6frg8zx-1225986617326 'Floods to slash $13bn from economy as inflation becomes a danger' | "The Australian"

accuracy?

"an area larger than Texas and California combined" um... I dont think the WHOLE STATE of Queensland is that big, let alone the flood zone. Someone should don't check that... and if I;m wrong, please message me and explain how I am wrong.--184.77.51.193 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

QLD is big -- remember, mainland Australia is divided into only 5 states + NT, so even if Australia is smaller than the U.S. that's still a lot of land (furthermore, QLD is the largest state in the eastern coast)... but significantly smaller in population than TX and CA. For example, San Francisco Bay Area and the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex both have higher population.
However, I dunno how important this factoid is to merit a mention at the lede. Much of the population should be on the coast, and the interior should be lightly populated. The percentage of the population seems to be a better measure. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the "Texas and California" comparison or the earlier "France and Germany" comparison. Such comparisons are only useful in a local context (i.e. the first for US readers and the second for European readers) and we are supposed to be a global encyclopdia. It would be better to state thearea affected in square kilometres (square mi) and leave comparisons to readers. I am not sure using population helps either since the statement is trying to get across the geographical scope of the area affected. Rivers across 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) of Queensland and Northern NSW coast have been in flood as well as rivers on the other side of the divide. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Texas - 696,241km2. California - 423,970 km2. Queensland - 1,730,648 km2. The whole state is 1.5 times the area of Texas and California combined, and 75% of it is affected by flooding. Therefore the flood zone is 1.15 times the area of Texas and California combined. However the area in square km is more useful than comparisons. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have decided to be bold and removed comparisons with other countries. In my opinion they're silly on a worldwide encyclopedia, because by definition they're only meaningful to some readers. The area (in sq kms), plus the fact that it's 3/4 of Queensland, is enough. Adpete (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What about the relative proportion of economic loss to Hurricane Katrina. Should it be excluded for the same reason? - Shiftchange (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes, because again it's only meaningful to USA readers. Also there is the additional problem that comparing economic losses between two different countries carries pitfalls. (For instance, the USA might be better able to absorb a $10 billion disaster than Australia, and Australia could better than a smaller country). If any comparison is done, I'd rather compare it to similar Australian disasters (if at all). Adpete (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the $13 billion loss is the loss to the Australian GDP only and excludes the damage itself. This is 1% of Australia's GDP compared to 0.09% of the US gdp for perspective (where 1% would be 143 Billion).Wayne (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge / Rename Proposal

The title is too specific as these floods have not just affected Queensland. While it may not be of the same magnitude there is still major flooding going on in both Victoria and NSW as well as minor flooding in South Australia and Tasmania.

http://mapvisage.appspot.com/static/floodmap/map.html?center=-29.180050206345545,142.3359375&zoom=5&layers=Rivers,1

There are towns in Victoria that have been evacuated and are currently completely underwater, yet it doesn't belong in either the 2010 Victorian Floods article or this one and there is no sense having an article called 2010-2011 Victorian Floods as well as this one and another for NSW. Clearly an article of larger scope is needed.

I propose that this article be renamed 2010-2011 Eastern Australian Floods and the other articles merged into it or linked off as sub-articles. --Biatch (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose While the Clarence River is arguably within the scope of this article, the other floods are not and their inclusion will only further dilute the focus of this one. This article is already doing double duty trying to include the floods caused by the rain event on 24 December and the flood events caused by the rain event of 10 January. The Victorian floods are certainly significant for an article on their own (I was planning on writing a stub this evening) This could include with the South Aussie and Tassie floods—much the same rain event—or made a stand alone article in its own right. The December 2010 Gascoyne river floods could do with an article too but I would not roll them up into this one either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Lets keep this article specifically for Queensland's floods. No merge or renaming is needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When will it end?

Considering that many rivers will have flood warnings posted by the Bureau of Meteorology for weeks and months on what basis will this disastrous series of floods be considered over? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1893 floods saw two additional peaks two weeks after the main flood. I reckon we won't know it is finally over until a few weeks after it is over. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war regarding number of dead.

Two users have been involved in an edit war regarding the number of dead in Qld, an dI have posted a 3RR warning on both of their user pages. The official Qld toll listed in the media within the last hour (8PM Qld time) states that the toll is presently 18. --Dmol (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a rather large discussion about this above that may be worth reading before pontificating on topics that you have spent exactly 2 minutes thinking about. See Talk:2010–2011 Queensland floods#Number of dead and Talk:2010–2011 Queensland floods#Split death toll (and maybe split articles?). The deaths are all referenced in the "Deaths" section. I repeat - the scope of this article covers the floods in Queensland from 24 Decemeber 2010 not just the follow up event caused by the rain in Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley from 10 January that the press death toll covers. I know this because I have been editing this article for some time. If you want to split the article to allow the death toll to cover only the latter event, be my guest. Until then, I would prefer to have the fatalities figure cover the entire scope of the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is reprehensible for authorities and the media to have simply forgotten those who lost their lives in these floods prior to Monday's flash flood in Toowoomba. I want to know why that has happened. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the figure of 18 is verifiable. If anyone wants to add a reliable reference for a higher figure I'd be happy to accept that. Until then, 18 is the correct figure.--Dmol (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a whole section (with references) at 2010–2011 Queensland floods#Deaths with details of all the deaths! Read it, for crying out loud!! There was a table in an earlier version of this article but that was removed per WP:MEMORIAL. It is unfortunate that the press have chosen to focus on the Toowoomba/Lockyer Valley death tolls but those other people still died and their deaths are recorded through the use of reliable sources. Your figure is just plain, straight out wrong unless you split this article and change the scope-- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Using the figure of 18 would be problematic, as I fear it would be misrepresenting the source - the figure does not refer to deaths over the whole 2010-2011 floods, so it would need to be clear that it only covers deaths since 10 January. Most of the news is focusing on the recent deaths, but the Courier-Mail listed 10 deaths on 3 January. We would need another source to cover the time between the 3rd and 10th. - Bilby (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have another source ("Floods death count climbs to 11", Courier-Mail, 9 January) which lists 11 deaths prior to the flash flooding, which seems to have been the point from which the figure of 18 is calculated. That article is interesting, as it originally (in the print version, according to NewsBank) reported that there were 12 deaths, but was later revised to read 11. I've checked, and I can find no pre-January 10 source listing more than 11 deaths, but there are a few which report the 11 figure. That figure of 11 also includes the first death in late November. I've been able to confirm that the second figure of 18 is related to deaths since January 10 via a spreadsheet provided by News Limited. (That may have been known by everyone else, but I wanted confirmation for my own sake, just to exclude the possibility of overlap between the figures). Thus I think we can source at least 29 deaths since the flooding began in late 2010. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify media reporting and their "focus". Take this typical article published today, it claims 18 people died in the first paragraph but then goes on to describe flooding across Queensland, the Premier's flood appeal, which started in December, and the wider number of towns/areas affected. Reporting a lower death toll while describing a larger flood creates a falsehood. It is misleading readers with lazy reporting, things we should avoid. Don't expect Bligh to get it right either as for many days she was saying that Lockyer Creek waters flowed into Wivenhoe Dam. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Flatness of land

Water alone can't flood a city with many hills, so apparently Brisbane and Queensland are also very flat? Maybe the article should elaborate on the physical geography? --LA2 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane is actually a reasonably hilly city by Australian standards, it is just that much of the city is clustered in low points around the river and the streams (some now basically stormwater drains) that feed it. What this article needs is some decent maps. One showing the towns and rivers affected across the state and one showing the areas flooded in Brisbane and Ipswich. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also areas that are flooded now was swamp land (even in 1974 some of the swamp was still there) but modern development has seen it been developed in resent years. Bidgee (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Geography of Queensland#Rivers 3rd paragraph mentions that "Some of Queensland's towns are located on relatively flat land on the banks of rivers", but I don't know if such a statement can be quantified. How is one city worse than another in this respect? Is there a list of the world's flattest cities? It would be nice if elevation histograms or some similar graph or figure could present such facts, maybe for every article about a state or city.
The same paragraph mentions that "Disruptions from flooding have become accepted in inland towns like Charleville and to a lesser degree in coastal towns such as Gympie", but the articles Charleville and Gympie don't describe how flooding is "accepted" there, only that they have occurred. --LA2 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I may want to mention that the nearest city outside of Brisbane is Towomba. Although there are less than many 200 metre points around to choose from, Towomba is at 600 metres altitude.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It would not be good to mention that Toowoomba is the nearest city to Brisbane, because that is absolutely false. Ipswich, for instance, is much closer and so is Redcliffe. LowKey (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

191% full?

We are told "...the Wivenhoe Dam filled to a level equivalent to 191% of its supply capacity". What?

Surely a dam can only be 100% full. Or maybe 101% or so if water is flowing over the spillway. This needs either a correction, explanation or deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A dam can indeed only be 100% full, but that word is not used. Wivenhoe Dam can hold a lot more water than its supply capacity. The extra capacity above the supply capacity is for flood mitigation, and according to our Wivenhoe Dam article must be released within seven days. Melburnian (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This document shows the water it holds. Bidgee (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. My point would still be that what the article is telling us isn't very meaningful or helpful. At a time when it's doing flood mitigation, its supply capacity becomes pretty irrelevant. Surely what we need to be reporting is what percentage of its total capacity was reached. I note that the dam's own article tells us that "dam water level reached 60 centimetres (24 in) below the auxiliary spillway height". Still not ideal, but it's a bit more relevant to flooding than the supply capacity. Would that be better content for this article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The proportion to supply capacity is relevant because it shows the proportional volume they have to release, in this case nearly half of the dam's water to be able to restore flood capacity for the next flood event. Perhaps the term "supply capacity" could be made into a stub article or linked somewhere.Melburnian (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, thanks for that explanation. There's some good information appearing in this little thread. Anyone game to combine it into something fit for the article? Not sure if I've got the whole concept clear enough in my head yet. HiLo48 (talk)
I had a stab at it. Melburnian (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

SVG Brisbane flood map

The Queensland Government has placed available online a map showing the areas inundated by water within the Brisbane City limits. (Can't find exact link anymore; PDF file, title "080547 Brisbane River Hydraulic Model Review to PMF: 5,000 m3/s Peak Discharge at Port Office Gauge Inundation Extents - East (Figure 112)") Now, I am unsure as to how copyright and fair use applies to Australian Government works, but is it possible if someone is able to make a derivative work, into an SVG vector graphic using Inkscape? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead

2 edits by 122.107.10.183 (talk · contribs) increased this from 15(?) to 26, with attached source. This seems odd as the State Premier is still reporting 9 confirmed deaths. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The 9 confirmed deaths relate to the recent floods in Toowoomba and Lockyer Valley. The absolute total for all floods throughout Queensland will need to be checked. Artorius (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Artorius. I hope the figure is correct! :) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 07:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to keep the numbering consistent by adding a table. There are gaps, as all details of the details on 10 January & 11 January are yet to be made public. I believe, as at 22:58 AEDST on 11/01/2011, the correct number of deaths is 22 (although the total in the box says 23) - this includes ten deaths that occured over 10/1 and 11/1 - although I may be out by one. Jherschel (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead is incorrect. As of 2:44pm AEST 13/11/2011 official death toll is listed as 15. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-info-centre-updates-reports-warnings-advice-and-how-you-can-help/story-fn7ik2te-1225985436806 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashmyles (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This article covers floods in Queensland since mid December 2010, not just the events of the last week in the south east corner. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the references given in the death section of the article, not all of them can properly be attributed to the floods. Two in particular - (1) boy drowning after jumping into a swimming home and a fisherman in Brisbane River. Hence why the number of deaths should be reported as confirmed by the Queensland Premier or Queensland Police Service. Triamks (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The current death toll that QLD Police have is for this flood event not the event in December. The article has both December and the current event so please do not change it. Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please provide the sources indicating that the total death toll is 30? I understand that the official death toll of 16 (with 20 people missing) is based largely on SE Queensland, but I have been unable to find any information on the additional deaths from the flood. I have no issue with your argument that the reported 16 is related to SE Queensland, but we need verifiable claims of the 30 (hopefully from official sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.20.206.116 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole section in this article, with references, that details the deaths. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This confused by the Deaths Section, have 30 people been confirmed dead or is it 43? My maths isn't the best but the numbers stated in the section add up to 43. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oprah

Should Oprah Winfrey's role in fundraising by mentioning the QLD floods in her Australia special get a mention ? --Biatch (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if she did something significantly more than mention the floods. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Split death toll (and maybe split articles?)

News reports are currently calling the death toll 12,[5] i.e. 12 from the Toowoomba and surrounding area floods which began on Monday the 10th. This article is using a higher number by including further north floods too. I think we should follow the reliable sources (i.e. the mainstream news) and have the death tolls separate. On a similar vein, I wonder if the article should be split. The recent flooding is a separate event, the only common factor has been the weather pattern. Or at least, have a more major section split in the current article. Adpete (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has the death toll pre: the "inland tsunami" so it contains the deaths from Southern, Central and Northern QLD from December on wards, the media and QLD Police are reporting on the toll from Toowoomba all the way to Brisbane. Also the toll is now 13 (with another death in Ipswich last night which has not added to the toll). I think it should be placed on hold until we have clearer picture of the situation. Bidgee (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, either it got changed in between reading and making the comment or (more likely) I missed the relevant sentence. So forget what I said. I agree it's all chaotic at the moment. Adpete (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"As of 13 January 2011, 30 deaths have been attributed to the floods - of the 29 deaths, 13 people, all in Toowoomba and in the Lockyer Valley, are confirmed to be dead" In the one sentence, we have three different figures for deaths. Which is it - 30, 29 or 13?

Can we get a para that says something like. X deaths have been attributed to the floods to date. Of these, Y died in flash flooding in Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley and Z died in other flood-related events. Another J persons are listed as missing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. The media reporting is generally quite lazy. The floods in Toowoomba and the South-East are part of the same event in Central Queensland. We should have a total death toll for the whole event and to suit the mainstream media include a toll for those in South East Queensland. Thatsgold (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Death tolls should be put on hold, the numbers keep changing or not yet confirmed and it is getting very confusing. The same with people missing,etc. I have been trying to keep up but as you can see from above a am starting to stuff it up. I shall not update further as it is changing by the hour - I have heard on the news that 14 are dead now, not including the 50 year old in Ipswich.

I shall fix up the 29/30 error and leave it at that. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The deaths section is all wrong/incorrect. I'm not the best at maths but the Deaths Section adds all up to 41 - not 30; 13+1+5+9+13=41 (this may or may not include 2 deaths counted after the flash flood). I may be reading the section wrong, but it's either 30, 41 or the numbers are written twice. Plus, this section is not the same as the info box. I have lost track of who has died before the flash flood, during the flash flood and afterward.

I propose that the Deaths Section be deleted till after the official final deaths count is confirmed OR the Deaths section is correctly counted - like Mattinbgn has proposed above. Do editors agree or disagree? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DEATHS - I have done some research and I have ALL deaths at 27. 12 before Toowoomba's flash flood, 13 in the Toowoomba area, 2 after Toowoomba (I have based my count around Toowoomba's disaster). I am missing three somewhere OR am I correct at 27? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that until we can conclusively work out the death toll (with relevant sources/news reports), we cannot put the "total" death count. I would recommend either putting "unknown" for total with 16 for SE Queensland (if people are certain that it's limited to SE Queensland), or to say "confirmed 16 from (start date) to (end date) to tie into official sources". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.20.206.116 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my stuff up of this section last night, my computer froze and rebooted itself and I didn't realise it saved my half done changes. Sorry again. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QLD Police have 35 deaths since 30 November. Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Include cyclone-caused flooding damages and tolls?

Hi. Flooding is now returning to Queensland in the coming days, due to Cyclones Anthony and Yasi in the SW Pacific. Since Tasha triggered some flooding in its wake, should this article include only the flooding resulting separately from those storms, or include the effects from both the cyclones and their dissociated convective moisture in the article until the effects can be separated out? Currently, Yasi is expected to hit Queensland as a category three cyclone SSHS (cat. 4 on the Australian scale) on Wednesday, and more flooding could follow afterwards so we may need to decide what specifically to include in the scope of the article. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem with less than absolutely concise titling of articles. I see two perspectives. One is that the title in its current form allows for coverage of any flooding in Queensland until the end of 2011. The other is that the weather systems that caused the flooding so far described in the article are now long gone. Those floods are finished. I really don't think we want this article to carry through covering every flood event until the end of the year. Is it appropriate to consider a rename to Queensland floods, December 2010-January 2011? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It's completely pointless to rename the article. There will never be another 2010-2011 Queensland flood. Specifying it to the months makes it a cumbersome title that is overly specific. Also, best way to determine whether or not to include the information from the storms is whether or not the floods had subsided by the time the storms hit. If there was no flooding present, it's not really part of this article and solely due to the cyclone. If there was flooding present, then it should be at least mentioned in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It's ironic that you say "There will never be another 2010-2011 Queensland flood", because that's not the article's title. It says "floods", which makes a real difference. Maybe you DO want a rename. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There was more then one flood in Queensland, not just Brisbane, so floods is the correct word to use. Bidgee (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Typo on my part, but that's beside the point. You get what I mean in general though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the information about these cyclones will be more suitable in the respective articles, and 2010–11 Australian region cyclone season. As the 'on the ground' situation (dam levels, etc) from the January floods may cause a second round of flooding (or third in some cases), I think it would be worth mentioning at the end of this article, but only briefly, and only if the subsequent flooding is significant. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hilo48 - we could always move it to "Summer 2010-11 Queensland floods".Jason Rees (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No that would be original research putting two seperate weather events together as they were one. There had been different reasons. The main reason for the floos in late December and first half of January wasn't Tasha alone but the monsoonal trough lingering in the area shortly after. It has long gone, the floos had been retreating widely (see a set of images on NASA's Earth Observatory website some days ago). If Yasi triggered some floods that mostly will be flash floods and they'll actually affect roughly the North of the state wether the former floods focused in South East Queensland. Linking those events would be like linking a flood event in Chicago with one in New York City with a month time between it happened. Nobody would do that wouldn't? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's actually a classic example of thinking that state boundaries as drawn by humans mean something to nature. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See Also...?

I'm thinking that some of the "See also" links currently in the article might not be all that useful to our readers. At the moment we have:

I'm not sure how the events in Rio, Southern Africa, and arguably Gascoyne River are related to this, apart from occuring around the same time. I think that it makes much more sense to link in 1974 Brisbane flood, and possibly 1893 Brisbane flood or March 2010 Queensland floods, which can provide a bit of historical context. The list and the generic Floods in Australia make sense and should be kept.

Would anyone object if I replaced those articles? Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

To a climatologist watching the impact of La Nina, the concurrent (or nearly) events are definitely closely related. HiLo48 (talk)
There is no suggestion in the article that the 2010 Gascoyne River flood was related to a La Nina event. In any case, the likely readers of the article are going to be the general public, not climatologists (although it makes sense to highlight any link in the article prose, I agree). Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Floods in the Lockyer Valley

While the well known places in the Lockyer Valley were hit and suffered great losses there were other places not metioned in this article. The plainland laidley forest hill and Hatton vlae areas were not mentioned. Laidley and Forest hill in particilar were hit with the flods destroying alot of the shops in their main streets. Hatton Vale was mostly safe because it is on the hill and plainlands provided a safe place for all those that were evacuated from this area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.214 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Current assessment

I was wondering if anyone knows of any omissions this article should expand upon. Are there any sections which need expanding or issues that need resolving? I ask because I was going to assess this article as B class. I think we have done a great job on this article. For example it is nice to a large set of references that are complete. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hydrology

There is a serious mistake in the article in relation to the January 10th floods. Toowoomba lies on the eastern edge of the Great Dividing range, but the watershed between Gowrie Creek which feeds into the Condamine River and ultimately the Murray darling system and the Lockyer Valley creeks.

"Toowoomba City is at the headwaters of a number of drainage systems. Water from the City drains east into the Lockyer Creek system, south into the Hodgson Creek system, west into the Westbrook Creek system and north into the Gowrie Creek system. The majority of the City of Toowoomba drains to the north into the Gowrie Creek system." http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/overview/qld/gmu-toowoomba-city-basalt.html

Murphy's Creek rises on the NE corner of Toowoomba, only about 5km above the devastated township of Murphy's Creek (I would estimate draining only about 3 square km of the area east of Harlaxton and Mount Kynock). Gatton Creek rises in Redwood Forest Park on the city's eastern boundary (A similar area drained within the boundary), the next valley to the south, and flows through Withcott. These two join on Helidon's western edge to form Lockyer Creek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexToowoomba (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the error is. Can you re-word to clarify your point. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead

Three of those listed as missing were today officially declared dead.[6] I have updated the total and noted this further in the text. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010–11 Queensland floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010–11 Queensland floods. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010–11 Queensland floods. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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) 00:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Final report of official inquiry

The final report of the official inquiry into the floods was published on March 2012. I think we should regard this as a more reliable source than some of the media reports that occurred at the time. For example, the final report attributes the first death due to the floods as occurring on 30 November 2010 in Dysart. Therefore, the flooding commenced in November 2010 not December 2010 as we were showing. Similarly, we have figures of 3 or 4 people dying the flash flood at Toowoomba but the inqury finds only 2 people died in that event (probably the others were people who died around the same time but not within Toowoomba itself). Kerry (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I realise the people doing it are probably not reading this Talk page, but can we please stop randomly changing the numbers of dead and missing. The report above not only counts them, it lists them individually with the circumstances of their death/disappearance. It is noted in the report that they have excluded those who died where the police investigation established that the circumstances of their death were not flood-related. Media reports at the time of the event were inevitably misinformed by the rapidly changing situation; their death tallies are not as reliable as the Commission of Inquiry which had all available information to work with. Kerry (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
To be precise, the report says "Thirty-three people died in the 2010/2011 floods; three remain missing." (Introduction, page 32). Kerry (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010–2011_Queensland_floods/Archive_1&oldid=1146828394"