Talk:Severe storms in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.
Flag
Portal
 Severe storms in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Talk copied across from 2 December 2005 Canberra storms

I am not much in favour of removing content from the wikipedia but really question whether this subject is encyclopaedic or notable. Wouldn't it have been better reported at wikinews? Someone says excitedly on the radio that there are trees down in Commonwealth Park and in the suburb of Curtin - yes but there are even more trees left standing. It is very sad a man was hit by a falling tree - but not necessarily a notable event, either meteorogically or otherwise. Similarly the small plane crash - these things happen - this was the third Piper Chieften to crash this year in Australia.--A Y Arktos 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They said it was the worst environmental event to hit the city since the bushfires, and I think I heard damage estimates in the $10m-$20m range. There were alot of buildings damaged all over the city as well as the power failures. Wasnt one building in Fyshwick 'demolished' because of the storm? Astrokey44 23:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure who "they" were - doesn't matter - it is newswriting - could be described as the worst storm in Canberra this century or millenium too. We are fortunate to not have many storms here. I found a database of disasters at http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emaDisasters.nsf which includes a disasters database listing disasters back to 1622 apparently. It is not necessarily complete as per their caveat. However, there was a storm in January this year that killed three and injured 12 with the damage bill estimated at $216.7m. (not sure if my search will link successfully). I certainly did not remember it - I guess because I was not affected.
In 1969 there was a storm at Kempsey that killed 21 because of the loss of a ship. 18 were killed in Townsville in 1896. 406 off King Island in another shipwreck. The report of 1563 deaths from severe storm definitely inspires me to stay on dry land as shipwrecks are the biggest offenders followed by aircraft such as the 1990 Emerald crash.
My point is about perspective and notability. I am not nominating for deletion but suggesting future events might be better written about at Wikinews and then transwikied if notability eventuates.--A Y Arktos 11:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Notability is still a proposed guideline, despite how much its used as a reason for deletion at AfD. Events which occur since Wikipedia started are likely to be covered in more detail than more significant pre-21st century events, I dont think they can be compared fairly really. Although I guess I did get caught up in all the tv and newspaper coverage, maybe there could be some sort of general article on Severe storms in Australia where you could put some of the other storms you mentioned and this one Astrokey44 11:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The quote I best like about notability is
Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No: Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.)

I have linked the article to List of disasters in Australia by death toll which now seems to be a pretty comprehensive list.

I really like the map in this article. Could you produce something similar for Canberra_bushfires_of_2003? Perhaps the intensity of the fires could be illustrated by a gradation of colour based on damage?--A Y Arktos 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Martyman about it since he made the suburb map Astrokey44 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

what a stupid article for wikipedia. get rid of this at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.111.198 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2007