![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
I've just had a revision ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Details of the Australian Defence Force operation. [1] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 06:07, 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)
75.57.125.20 ( talk) 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? --  æŽåšæ°Â | — Talk contribs email 04:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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 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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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. ~ A H 1( T C U) 18:02, 30 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
I've just had a revision ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Details of the Australian Defence Force operation. [1] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 06:07, 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)
75.57.125.20 ( talk) 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? --  æŽåšæ°Â | — Talk contribs email 04:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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 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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( 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. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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. ~ A H 1( T C U) 18:02, 30 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
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)