Talk:Cyclone Debbie
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Undescribed in topic Indirect deaths
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
Peak intensity edit
@Cyclonebiskit, Jason Rees, MarioProtIV, and Typhoon2013: Australian Bureau of Meteorology: ‘The cyclone crossed the coast with an intensisty estimated at 105 knots.’[1] Should we follow this or still maintain the intensity at 100 knots? -- Meow 09:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should go with what they said, after all, they are the official RSMC of the Aus region... --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely go with the 105 kt peak intensity since it's explicitly stated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit and MarioProtIV: As the bureau indicated the landfall intensity at 105 knots again,[2] I have changed the values. -- Meow 14:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- The peak intensity is 105 knots unless the BoM, say different when they release their PTCR on Debbie.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Severe Weather Events Report by BoM, reconfirm 105 knots again.--60.246.168.145 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- The peak intensity is 105 knots unless the BoM, say different when they release their PTCR on Debbie.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit and MarioProtIV: As the bureau indicated the landfall intensity at 105 knots again,[2] I have changed the values. -- Meow 14:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely go with the 105 kt peak intensity since it's explicitly stated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
2017 Eastern Australia floods redirect edit
FYI, Ihave created a redirect from 2017 Eastern Australia floods to Cyclone Debbie#Impact. Not sure if this is how we usually handle this sort of thing as the floods are a result of the cyclone. Potentially expandable as floods continue perhaps? 220 of Borg 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Indirect deaths edit
Are these those who drowned in cyclone caused floods? In any case 6 have drowned so the 5 direct/5 indirect seems figures seems wrong. 220 of Borg 10:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @220 of Borg: Indirect deaths would be from car accidents, deaths from flooding would be direct. Not sure where the 5/5 total comes from to be honest. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: An IP did this without clarification. Maybe Undescribed can help as they updated the deaths last here. Looks like 5 Qld, 6 NSW deaths, up to 16:10 on 7 April per SBS [3].
Possibly a hidden note <!-- As of 7 April: 5 deaths in NSW, 6 in QLD --> and/or footnote to clarify. Perhaps this will prevent AGF IP edits that may confuse the issue. 220 of Borg 02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)- As of 8 April, the death toll is 6 in QLD (with two people still missing),[4] and 6 in NSW. However, I'm not sure how many of those deaths were direct/indirect. I've added the hidden note to clarify the matter. Hopefully at some point a report on Debbie will be released that will clarify how many deaths were direct/indirect, because I'm not sure how else we will be able to find out the details. --Undescribed (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: An IP did this without clarification. Maybe Undescribed can help as they updated the deaths last here. Looks like 5 Qld, 6 NSW deaths, up to 16:10 on 7 April per SBS [3].