Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Oswald

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

Oswald or 2013 Queensland floods

[edit]

Could people please give their opinions here on if this article should be @ Cyclone Oswald or 2013 Queensland floods or possibly Flooding in NT, QLD, NSW and Oswald.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the flooding is moving down the cost to New South Wales (affecting places such as Port Macquarie and Coff's Harbour) and is a result of the same weather event, 'Oswald' (now IIRC a tropical depression) perhaps it should eventually be re-named 2013 Eastern Australia floods? - 220 of Borg 03:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment id rather call it a remnant low rather than a tropical low (tropical depression).Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should rename it to Cyclone Oswald as that was the catalyst in this disaster and media-wise more people still refer to it as Oswald. See Cyclone Tasha (2010). Andyman14 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The thing has dropped something like 10 to 20 inches of rain over much of the coastal catchment area. So i suppose that you will start getting floods, just not straight up. Here is some shedule. Bundaberg is flooding on 28 Jan, Gympie as 28 Jan, Ipswich is flooding on 18:00 28 Jan, Brisbane on 29 Jan, Rockhampton on 31 Jan, Dalby on 31 Jan. Some of these rivers take days to reach towns. So even though you're not seeing floods yet, they're on their way. Bundaberg is getting lots of the stuff coming down from Gayndah and Mudgeburra. In NSW, you have towns on standby: Lismore is going through the early phases, Sydney is going through phases. Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article pretty much looks like a tropical cyclone article, should it be moved? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should it be moved? BoM calls it Oswald, and Oswald is the primary factor behinds the floods. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be moved so that we can preserve the contributions of the people who worked on this article, rather than starting again with a fresh article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would that fit with the merging of February 2013 Eastern Australia floods? - Shiftchange (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would stay as it is IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane

Given that the name Oswald has been retired, I'm going to move it back, unless there are any oppositions. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes aren't floods

[edit]

The only real section we have, Floods, is all about tornadoes and dead or missing people. These aren't floods. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the more reason it should be converted into an article about the tropical cyclone. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article about the tropical cyclone which only lasted a couple of hours after crossing the coast. The monsoon trough is what caused most of the damage. Additional information can be added. There are more floods still on the way with the Brisbane River expected to flood tomorrow. There has been so much coverage of the event over the last week and will continue to be there will be enough materials to add information about the floods. Right now the Queenslanders who normally add considerable content to such articles are probably otherwise occupied. Dbromage [Talk] 03:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, just move it to the tropical cyclone article on Oswald. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, a tornado might not necessarily be considered a 'flood', but this current event definitely is. I live in the Sunshine Coast and it doesn't look good. Everything is flooding. Seriously. The entire article isn't necessarily about the cyclone singularly, but about the bunch of events with these floods. I think the name of the article should remain the same. Rhain1999 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The flooding is the direct result of the cyclone though.Jason Rees (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, and the fact that more floods are coming is WP:CRYSTAL. Even then, it is still debatable, see also: Cyclone Tasha (2010). YE Pacific Hurricane 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YE its a common sense exception since the BoM are saying more floods are coming.Jason Rees (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting that floods are coming, all that I am saying is that non-Oswland related floods have occurred as of this writing AFIAK. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do about northern NSW?

[edit]

It's obvious that this weather event is impacting NSW too. The ABC, with its national view, is describing it as a disaster affecting "South-east Queensland and northern New South Wales". Dunno if that is too much for a revised article title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:23:09 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Up the top I suggested "2013 Eastern Australia floods", and an IP has added NSW details already. Also need to watch for vandals, had one edit say 19 dead! (reverted courtesy Randor1980 (talk · contribs) - 220 of Borg 05:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like 2013 Eastern Australia floods. Anyone else? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HiLo48! A discussion on this issue was first started at Talk:2012–13 Australian region cyclone season#Oswald article (see also top of this page). I have put a note there suggesting here may be a better venue, thought they are also discussing whether "floods article should be moved to an Oswald article". - 220 of Borg 11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the sound of 2013 Eastern Australia floods as an alternative title, but i think it would be better if we did it as a TC article with a section each for NT QLD and NSW rather than a floods article since its Oswald that did the floods.Jason Rees (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was WPTC policy to when a TC is part of a flood, and the TC did other impact, it is given a TC article. Therefore, I highly oppose the title mentioned. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not always Yellow Evan, if i was ever to do an article on this tropical low of 1992, id do it as a flood article since the low was just a part of the flooding. The difference in this case though is that the impact is directly because of the remnant low of Oswald/monsoon trough.Jason Rees (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why, I said "and the TC did other impact". AFAIK Oswland was a TC when it made landfall and Oswland alone was the only contributing factor to the flood. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong though. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I see now. In this case, it is more debatable, though given the fact that it was directly trackable, I'd lean towards moving it towards a TC article. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards splitting the TC Oswald section of 2012–13 Australian region cyclone season into a new article and merging this article into the new one. Dbromage [Talk] 02:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy, I have no great attachment to the title I suggested, just that the title (2013 Queensland floods) is now inaccurate as the entire east coast of Oz (and the Northern Territory too, I saw mentioned?) has been involved as the remnants of Oswald moved south. If Oswald gets 'his' own page then the flood text should be moved/merged in there, as JasonRees & Dbromage say above. - 220 of Borg 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to 2013 Eastern Australia floods. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly went and did it. (But you probably all realise that by now.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made a redirect for Cyclone Oswald to this page Andyman14 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End date for infobox

[edit]

Since the BOM has one east coast river on the Queensland Warning Summary page which is listed for flooding and it says there is only minor flooding and levels are expected to decrease rapidly today, do others agree the 4 February would be an appropriate end date? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of the floods?

[edit]

Hello. I just really wanted to point out that it's flooding again, particularly in Queensland. Schools have closed, roads are blocked and closed - as far as I'm concerned, it's almost as bad - maybe even as bad or worse - than the floods mentioned in the article.

So, I was wondering if a page has to be made about the "February 2013 Queensland floods", or whether it still fits into this article, or branches into another one, or something like that. I have a few pictures of my own to share about it, and I'm quite happy to help make and contribute towards the article.

Someone please reply soon! Thank you, Rhain1999 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking along those lines too. It's really a series of new events, rather than a continuation, and it has certainly affected NSW too. I think the new weather events deserve an article of their own, as February 2013 Eastern Australia floods. Logically, that would mean renaming this article to January 2013 Eastern Australia floods. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree, I've gone ahead and made the bold move. Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making that move. I will continue contributing as much as I can towards the February 2013 Eastern Australia floods page that I just made. Feel free to help out and, if you live in the affected areas, good luck and stay safe during this severe weather. Rhain1999 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the name change however I am not sure the February event is notable. It is not too unusual or wide-spread enough for an article here. In South East Queensland the rainfall has fallen off significantly. The damage will be far less than January 2013 and January 2011. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your opinion that the damage won't be as severe as January 2011 or January 2013, the rainfall is still quite heavy. For example, the last time it stopped raining for more than ten minutes around my area today was at about 8am, before I woke up. And it was pouring down rain yesterday. The flood waters are high, even though the damage might not be too severe. With currently one death and one missing, I think this is enough for an article which is surely going to grow, especially considering that there are much more articles that have far less information that the aforementioned one, which was only started a few hours ago. I believe that this article should stay, regardless of how severe the damage will be. Again, I wish you all good luck if you live in the affected areas. Rhain1999 (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cyclone Oswald. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 11:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Oswald&oldid=1253719782"