Talk:2011 Victoria floods

Sections

I am not sure if creating separate sections containing one line each is the best way to structure this article. Nor do I think that every creek that rises needs its own section. Some rationalisation may be required IMO. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It is not necessary to have the article title in the lead sentence, especially when the topic does not have an official name. "2011 Victorian floods" is not an official name, it is a name of convenience only. Putting the title in the lead sentence gives undue weight to the name and gives readers the impression that this is an official term rather than just a description. See Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything for further explanation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much inundating?

The word inundated means flooded. To say that the flood inundated a place is really just stating the obvious. I know it's a popular word with the media, but this is an encyclopaedia. We should write good English, not tabloid English.

And we have a minor confusion over the amount that was inundated. The lead tells me that "The floods completely inundated...Rochester". The section on Rochester tells me "Rochester on the Campaspe River suffered the worst floods in its history with around 200 houses, representing 80% of the community, inundated." Completely and 80% are not the same thing. Which was it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding use of the word "inundating" and supposed "tabloid English" I would suggest being WP:BOLD and fixing it if you are unhappy. Get busy and grab your thesaurus and change as many of the four mentions of the word "inundated" as you like. Your second point is easy to check - if you follow the references. I'll leave you to it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the same system as QLD

This is OR but it just makes me shake my head at the misinformation in the background section, the only sources I can find at this stage is Record January rainfall causes flooding in the southeast, Western NSW should prepare for more heavy rain and Wind, rain and storms batter southeast Australia.

The weather system which caused the heavy rainfall was a different system. The SE QLD system which affected Toowoomba, Lockyer Valley as as Brisbane was an slow moving upper level low (low pressure system located in the upper levels of the troposphere) and a high pressure system in the Tasman helped to driving in the moisture into the system however the system that affected SA E, NSW, VIC and TAS was a low pressure trough (with a low pressure system in-bedded) which extended up to the NT which helped to drag down moisture ahead of it. The trough then formed multi cell storms which then turned into broad rain areas with some heavy falls. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Duration of the floods

There's been a little edit skirmishing going on with the Duration filed in the Infobox, with people changing it to a date near today's. This all seems very silly. Is there a defined duration of this flood? Does it come anywhere near today? Would this field be better omitted? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the duration end date should be the last flood warning issued for the rivers which flooded during the Jan/Feb/March events. I don't think the flooding ended in April, more like mid to late March. Bidgee (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Where do we go to find when the last flood warning was issued? The BOM? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but not having any luck as the final flood warning on its site ATM is for an April rain event (unrelated). SES site has nothing. Only luck is to find a news article or even contacting the BoM. Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the name - Which 2011 Victorian floods?

User:Bidgee has just, quite understandably, reverted addition of "November 2011" to the Duration field in the Infobox, with an Edit summary telling us that it was a "Different weather event". That's obviously true, but a flood now is still in 2011. And the Infobox still includes "August 2011; October 2011", when the bulk of the article is about events in January.

What to do? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the floods in Victoria have never really stopped. Its been a really bad year/season for floods that has been ongoing due to La Nina. They may technically be different weather events, but are still part of the same La Nina event. Most of Victoria has been on continual flood alert since January 2011. These should be recorded somewhere. The 2011 Queensland flood article involves separate weather systems so I can't see why this one can't also. These events have been significant. There have been deaths by drowning in Sale and several large scale evacuations. More recently flash flooding in Shepparton and Ballarat and http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/evacuations-as-floodwaters-lap-homes-cars-20120301-1u48g.html ...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early 2011 Victorian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706111107/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/floods/8207291/flash-flooding-eases-in-victoria to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/floods/8207291/flash-flooding-eases-in-victoria

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)