Talk:2010 Western Australian storms/Archive 1

Merge proposal[edit]

Main reason why 2010 Perth storms should be merged into this article is that 2010 Perth hail storm is the correct title name, the hail storm is what did the damage in Perth. I see little point in having two articles on the very same storm. Bidgee (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

It's difficult to say - the hail did the *most* damage but the flash flooding caused a fair bit of chaos as well - I don't think anybody can remember so much water in Perth at any one time. While Youtube's not a source, I'd point to this in the middle of an enclosed arcade as one such example. Orderinchaos 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As that wasnt an answer - neither is this one. The commons category was started a day before these articles, the hail storm article next, and then the storm article - probably a classic case is there are merits both ways - the format of the hail storm stub was tied in with the commons category and linked. Satu Suro 00:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I should note I'm not at all opposed to keeping it at "hail storm", as the hail clearly accounted for a great majority of the damage.) The hail storm one, although shorter, is better referenced, although the storms one contains some facts this one does not. If I have a bit of time later today I can look into how they can best be integrated. Orderinchaos 01:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is heaps more in print versions of the west this week that give more flesh to the issues rising - the UWA damage alone... Satu Suro 01:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... I don't have the print version unfortunately :( Orderinchaos 03:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a list over weekend as a part of talk page info for further refs - Satu Suro 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the storm is really a hail storm (even though it had lightning, thunder and heavy rain), the hail would have made the flash-flooding worse. Although the good old Bureau of Met in Perth is yet to release a brief (something like Melbourne's met office did) so I guess we will have to Wait Awhile for the Bureau to get its act together! ;) Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the merge is to go ahead, it must be 2010 Perth hail storm that is merged into 2010 Perth storms. The title is far more encompassing and reflective of the content's subject matter. It wasn't just hail that fell, it was storms that passed over southwest WA. I would also support a move to a title such as 2010 Western Australian storms, although for now I think 2010 Perth storms is sufficient. I must also say, it was heavy rain that fell very quickly that caused the most damage, wind caused about the same as hail i imagine. Nick carson (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The West stories sort of range between the windows smashed, cars written off - hail, and local papers are carrying stories about fallen trees, and closer to the time was the sand slips at Jacobs Ladder which looked as though it was going to push a block of partments over - and flooding at the time - the insurance thing is dragging out. I would say the hail was the worst, and then the flooding, then wind - it simply couldnt compete with the financial damage the hail inflicted Satu Suro 04:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is that the correct term is "hailstorm" due to the fact of the size and the amount of hail, although "hailstorm" doesn't necessarily mean that it only produced hail but yes hailstorms also have heavy rain and strong winds but the hail is what does the damage made worse by the heavy rain. Storms means more then one and an incorrect term. The correct terms is hail storm or severe storm. Meteorology terms the above terms are correct to describe on what the storms produced but not the cells which produced them. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm now in agreement that it should be under "hailstorm". The 1999 Sydney hailstorm also included thunder and rain. Orderinchaos 04:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Perth BoM have at last released a report. I feel that maybe we should merge the two articles under March 2010 Western Australia severe thunderstorms (based on the Perth BoM's report) or something similar? Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should at least be merged. We can decide on the exact name later. Orderinchaos 11:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, we should merge this article and talkpage into 2010 Western Australian storms, even though I disagree about the broad name. Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - involvement in real life got in the way of trackings the worsts reports - however I would agree with merging both articles into a new titled one - but I am getting confused:

'2010 Perth storms'

'March 2010 Western Australia severe thunderstorms'

'2010 Perth Hail storm'

'2010 Western Australian storms'

Someone please merge them _ I seem to be short on time to do it Satu Suro 11:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Orderinchaos 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically '2010 Perth storms' was renamed to '2010 Western Australian storms', 'March 2010 Western Australia severe thunderstorms' was just an idea of an article title after the BoM released its report but I think the article naming discussion could take awhile to find suitable title, so for now it would be easier to merge this article and talkpage into '2010 Western Australian storms' (ex '2010 Perth storms').

My change of mind (and sorry for the confusion), was due to the report which the Perth BoM released. Bidgee (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who renamed the "2010 Western Australian Storms" page as, like the "2010 Victorian Storms", the event wasn't just confined to Perth: Mount Magnet received 57mm, Pingelly received 79mm and the cities of Mandurah and Bunbury also had power cut to various suburbs on both Sunday and Monday. Andyman14 (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well since we all seem to be in some agreement as to where it should end up, who wants to do the honours? Orderinchaos 11:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please do it - this discuss of merge is the longest I have seen for a while - the soooner a

Done sign appears the better Satu Suro 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have Done Andyman14 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]