Talk:Cyclone Tracy

Strength

There is no source for either the claim that this was a Cat 4 on the SSHS or on the Australian scale. All that is included in the article is a windspeed that corresponds to Australian Category 3. I know Tracy is considered to be Aus Cat 4, but that needs asserting. This and this give an assertions of that. The follow-up question is: If it was Category 4 can we say its winds were at least the minimum Cat 4 speed? The anemometer measurement is merely the highest winds directly recorded. The assertion for Cat 4 strength will be from satellite/radar and whilst not directly measured it would have been inferred; like is the case with all TCs. There should be a real estimate for the peak strength out there - the pdf above says 250 km/h for example. If you consider that reliable enough whack it in, that's Cat 4 asserted. If you want a BoM estimate hunt around or email.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a claim that the airport anamometer needle was bent indicating it hit the end stop hard , don’t know the range of the analogue display. There were 3 navy vessels in port, one sunk , HMAS Arrow killing two. The Anamometers on these were also destroyed. I have replaced 3 sensors the same as the ones on these naval ships and they are rated at 240kph , above this the cups blow off. Have been on a ship in 170kph winds and the anamometer was fine. Sorry can’t remember the brand, they were from the UK and rated explosion proof, must be well out of date as I couldn’t find them in google and I’m going back 30 years. 49.144.219.174 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I live in darwin and my whole family went through Tracy. Wind speeds only got recorded up until the barometer at the airport was ripped away. and Tracy was a cat 4 at that time. most meteorologists have speculated that she got upto a cat 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.6.133 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Record broken by Tropical Storm Marco (2008)

Whilst it may be true that the smallest cyclone on record has been broken by Tropical Storm Marco - the advisory notice is not enough to confirm that fact at this stage. I have reverted that edit and suggest that editors await a confirmation before it is returned. If the record being broken is confirmed then the fact will become clear soon enough.--VS ^talk 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity....

Yes, I was there that Xmas Eve and it is impossible to forget the massive piles of refuse, the broken buildings, the stunned people, the complete chaos everywhere. And then on top of that the poor buggers get hit by a cyclone! Myles325a (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, very funny. Let's confine this page to a discussion of the actual article, and leave poor-taste jokes for the pub. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Info box

Ok just a few issues one is the 250km/h claim seems to be very confused as some sources say Wind gust and others say Wind speed, Second issue is Tracy would be at least Cat 3 on the SSHS scale not Cat 1 as what the new info box claims. I will be emailing the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for facts on Tracy in hope to get everything corrected. Bidgee (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The 250 km/h claim is mentioned in the above link in the same sentence as the 217 km/h, which we already know is the speed of the gust [1]. We cannot say it is a Category 4 unless we also say that it is at least 225 km/h. Some here may accept the 225 number and some may accept the 250 number. I think since it is a government source, it is usable.

The article should stay with the new infobox, though, because that old one is depreciated. The problem is not with the template, but with the available data. We cannot say that is is a Category 3 or 4 on the SSHS without breaking the Wikipedia:NOR rule. I don't think BoM will have a 1-minute value, so until they do, the only thing that's citable is JTWC's estimate of 65 knots.

Additionally, if BoM claims that it is a category 3 or 4 on the SSHS but doesn't provide an estimated value, we can just change the 1 minute value to 96 knots or 115 knots.

Also, be careful about doing full reverts because you are also undoing lots of other edits. Potapych (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The anemometer at Darwin Airport recorded a gust of 217 km/h before the instrument was destroyed."[2] so it wasn't possible to record 250km/h and was only a thought of the damage done and even to the very day it's debated (As is if it was a Cat 4 or 5 on the Australian Scale).

Infact it is an issue with the template as it only works on those Cyclone that now have the 1 min data which a lot of the other Cyclones do not. This is were OR can be ignored since we know that the winds were around and the Category in the Australian scale. It's not possible for a Category 4 system to be a Cat 1 on the SSHS scale. Also you've not sourced the $775 million USD damage bill. Bidgee (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Airport anemometer recorded 217 km/h before failing, thus denying an exact reading of Tracy's wind strength but they were estimated to have reached 250 km/h.

When I have time I plan to make the template more like the small one, which doesn't ask for 1-minute values. The 775 million is a conversion from the 1998 damage estimate in Australian dollars (It's hidden in the notes). The SSHS category was probably anywhere between 3-5, but the question is which? We don't have any sustained wind speeds to make that assumption. Potapych (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the values available Tracy would have been a low end 4 on the SSHS scale. I've sent an email to the Met office in Dawin. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just fixed the template to make SSHS optional. I'll comment that part out until they get back to you. Potapych (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing i doubt you will be able to get a SSHS cat for ANY cyclones from the JTWC as they did not monitor the SHEM until 1980 Jason Rees (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't have them in the ATCR, but they have best tracks for these - some even have the maximum sustained winds. [3] Potapych (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another source that shows a map with categories at several points. I'm going to change the infobox once again to make the maximum gusts 240 km/h [4]. Do you want to add categories to the map you made? Potapych (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll get around to fixing that up (infact make a new map as well.) I've also got an email back from Tood Smith from the Darwin Office,

Dear ******,

Thank you for your query, and also for keeping the Wikipedia article up to date and correct.

The highest sustained 10-minute mean winds were in the range of 140-150km/h. This is an estimate based on the measured gust of 217km/h and the estimated maximum gust of 240km/h.

To convert from 10-minute mean winds into 1-minute mean winds, we multiply by about 1.15 (I say "about", as this can vary with surface roughness).

So 1-minute mean winds were probably in the order of 160-175km/h.

Using the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, this places Tracy as a Category 2 Hurricane.

I hope this helps you to correct the article.

Regards,

Todd

References:

"Report on Cyclone Tracy, December 1974", Bureau of Meteorology 1977.

"Cyclone Tracy, Technical Report 14", Bureau of Meteorology, 1975.

"Tropical Cyclones in the Australian Region, July 1909 to June 1980", Lourensz (Bureau of Meteorology) 1981.

At least we've now got something to work with to fix up this article which clearly needs to be done. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For it to be a category 4, the 10-minute mean winds should be between 160 - 199 [5]. The gusts seem to agree with their map. Also their chart[6] does seem to agree that a category 4 cyclone on their scale is roughly equivalent to a SSHS category 2-3 hurricane. I was hoping to include the 10-minute mean winds, but those numbers aren't high enough for a category 4 cyclone. Potapych (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Still working on the new map (Got a few things to fix such as the font and ocean colour) but need to know your thoughts on it Image:Cyclone Tracy map.png. Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Damages

I am a little skeptical about the $837 AUD in 1974. I found a source that uses that same number for the insurance payout in 2005 AUD (see page 4). There's a similar figure here [7], though it doesn't say what year. Potapych (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Same. Reason why I asked for you to source $775 million USD damage bill as I found it a little high for 1974 (Then again I could be wrong). Bidgee (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching. The EMA database [8] has the $837 million figure again, and if you look in Information you'll see that it says the costs represent the costs at the time of the disaster. Now we have to convert that to US dollars in 1974. I checked the Reserve Bank of Australia and looked up the monthly data from Dec 1974 [9]. I believe that number represents the value of the US dollar against the $A at the time, so I am getting $1110.699 million USD. The $837 can be cited in the article, but we need USD for the infobox. Potapych (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Global best track

I found this at this source[10]. Would anyone prefer it if the article used this information instead? The most interesting thing about this track is that it indicates Tracy was a Category 3 storm on the SSHS. I can also make a track map directly from this data.

15640 12/21/1974 M= 5 36 SNBR=1740 TRACY       XING=0 SSS=3                          
15641 12/21*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0* 931320  10  990* 961315  35  990*
15642 12/22* 991312  38  990*1041309  43  985*1071307  40  985*1111306  43  985*
15643 12/23*1121304  48  980*1141302  50  976*1161300  50  975*1171299  60  971*
15644 12/24*1191299  70  970*1211302  70  964*1221305  60  956*1241309 110  950*
15645 12/25*1251314  80  968*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
15646 HR SRC=jtwc_sh:bom:neumann  S/N=1974356S09132

Potapych (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of make a map based on the BoM's category scale and track but the above data map help me to also add SSHS some how. Bidgee (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Withstanding

{{editsemiprotected}} In PREPARATIONS: should be "... withstanding ...", not "... with standing ...".

Done. --- RockMFR 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Damages Again

Why on earth are the damage costs in this articles' infobox given in US Dollars only? My particular interest is checking whether Tracy or the 1999 Sydney hailstorm was the most costly, allowing for inflation. The hailstorm article says "The 1999 Sydney hailstorm was the costliest natural disaster in Australian insurance history". I would have thought Cyclone Tracy was worse? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AMOJ

Just to let people know the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal has released a special issue on Cyclone Tracy. It includes a journal from two forecasters at TCWC Perth & Darwin reanalyzing Tracy's windspeeds and pressure.Jason Rees (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Need for re-write

This section has upset a recent triviacleaner in action - it needs to be re-written and sourced and probably reasserted that is is a very valid part of Australian history - regardless of the cultural title: -

'===Cyclone Tracy in popular culture==='

- 'Cyclone Tracy, because of its severity, has entered into the popular culture of Australia in a way that no other meteorological event has ever before, or has since. Probably the most famous work that it has inspired is the song "Santa Never made it into Darwin" composed by Bill Cate and performed by Bill (Cate) and Boyd (Robinson) in 1975 to raise money for the relief and reconstruction efforts. Subsequently the song became so well-known that in 1983 Hoodoo Gurus released "Tojo Never Made it to Darwin", a song comparing the Japanese bombing of Darwin under the command of Hideki Tojo during World War II to the damage done by Cyclone Tracy. The much feared Japanese invasion never happened, but the cyclone that was virtually ignored ended up destroying the city.

In 1986 the Nine Network and PBL created Cyclone Tracy, a period drama mini-series based on the events during the cyclone. Michael Fisher, Ted Roberts, and Leon Saunders wrote the series, and it starred Chris Haywood and Tracy Mann, who played the lead characters of Steve and Connie.

Australian heavy metal band, Cyclone Tracy, took their name from the tropical disaster.

Placed here in agf in the hope that a re-write might not so much offend the sensibilities of the keep or delete sides of the argument SatuSuro 08:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Death toll inconsistency

After reverting what appeared to be vandalism to Impact section of this article, I noticed that there was conflicting information about how many people had died as a result of the cyclone. On a closer look, I saw that the sources provided for the death toll figures don't actually mention the official death toll. Further, I haven't been able to verify the death toll figure currently presented. An article here puts the official toll at 65. I may update the figure if I can't find a source to verify the 71 deaths figure. Rinkle gorge (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no conflict. In 2005 the coroner declared that 6 people previously declared as missing perished at sea.[11] The ABC article was linked to in in the "Impact" section where this is discussed, but I've moved the ref to avoid any ambiguity. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Offensive assertion

I find the following statement offensive "Despite several warnings the people of Darwin did not evacuate or prepare for the cyclone". My parents prepared the best they could, as did many other families. Not everyone in Darwin was drunk and oblivious like all this sort of stuff seems to imply. Im sick of this rhetoric passing as fact. Same with the assertion that despite warnings nobody evacuated, please provide a reference to an evacuation warning from the authorities. Even people in the BOM office werent prepared for it to hit. I demand an edit! 101.103.25.87 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find the statement offensive. The article was written many years ago, and the original editor did not intend to offend any residents. If you have some proof via a source that can prove there were evacuations ahead of time, you can always add it to the article :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I can do something with this. Gary McKay's book, 'Tracy' quotes 16 instances of organisations and individuals taking action before the cyclone to secure their possessions (and their lives). I'll wait for Sophie Cunningham's book, 'Blown Away' which has just come out and look for examples in there as well before proposing an edit here. I should also be able to obtain a copy of the advisories that were broadcast on the radio, and there's mention of a written booklet. I don't want to pre-empt the research that needs to be done to nail this issue down, but I'd suggest that the outcome would likely be an observation that preparedness was (a) approached both well by some and poorly by others (b) almost universally inadequate to cope with an unprecedented event, and (c) never included the option of evacuating 'out of town'. I'm not sure if internal evacuations (seeking shelter' in community buildings) was a standard advice in those days - that'll need checking. And, yes, I was there, and old enough to remember. What's more I flew in on a commercial flight around noon on the 24th, not something you'd expect to happen if there was a formal advice to 'leave town' because the cyclone was imminent. I'll need a few weeks to pull this all together, and put forward a formal edit. Melanimmi (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider is where were the people supposed to go?

There were no evacuation centers back then, nearest major town Alice Springs probably 8 to 10 hours drive back then. Would you take the risk of being caught in your car in a cyclone. The small size of the storm led to the belief it wasn’t too strong. 49.144.219.174 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Exaggerated military role

It may to true that "all of the Defence Force personnel throughout Australia, along with the entire Royal Australian Air Force's fleet of transport planes, were recalled from holiday leave", but I doubt that they were all "deployed to evacuate civilians from Darwin", particularly the entire defence force personnel strength!Royalcourtier (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Tracy. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.westnet.com.au/anugraha/music/files/santa.txt

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Tracy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222095921/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E5.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclone Tracy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426001905/http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=2174 to http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/Browse%20Details/DisasterEventDetails.aspx?DisasterEventID=2174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040826033153/http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/advanced/cyc_tracy.html to http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/advanced/cyc_Tracy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010011535/http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/basic/Met/index.html to http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/basic/Met/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First post-Tracy communication

My memory tells me the first (non-amateur) communication with the rest of Australia was via the PMG (later Telecom Australia and now Telstra) "order wire" at the ABD-6 transmitter building, Blake Street Darwin. I never used it but knew several who did. NTD-8 occupied an ATCO demountable nearby, and I believe its satellite communication was put out of action by "the blow". And had the ABC radio station by then graduated from 5DR to 8DR? To my shame I can't remember and I worked there! Doug butler (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Checking my notes, found 5DR became 8DR in 1960. Doug butler (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wording

The storm was the second-smallest tropical cyclone on record.

This may be the technically correct description, but it does not immediately convey the notability. Valetude (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

when it says the area's affected, Darwin was affected too but the article didn't include it RJ da smart boi (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

List of victims - how to display it

This is definitely not how the list of victims should appear.

I used a collapsible list here but the show/hide link appears way down the page, near the top of the "Memorial at Casuarina High School" image, and I don't know why - probably something to do with the images, because it appears correctly if I delete the images. (Or if I {{clear}}, but that creates a lot of white space.)

Putting the list inside a {{box}} [12] is slightly better but still ugly. Surely there must be a better way to do it, but I can't work out how. Any suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

But first we need to agree whether we should have the list at all. Discuss separately in #Should we have a list of victims? please. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we have a list of victims?

Separated from "how to display it" section. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe we should have one at all. It is a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL since none of the victims mentioned are notable. _ZZ^Z'S 13:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition, is it really important to include every person who died from Tracy? I believe such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of information that does not serve a realistic purpose. _ZZ^Z'S 13:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements" - but the subject of the article is the cyclone, not the victims , so I don't think NOTMEMORIAL applies here.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy deleted the standalone list article, but the closing comment included "if any editor wants this content to Merge into the main storm article, we can make that happen", so we should at least discuss that possibility. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not the definition the policy is referring to. When they say subjects, they are referring to the deceased. Its definition is clarified in the following sentence, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. _ZZ^Z'S 13:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not the definition the policy is referring to — "Subjects of encyclopedia articles" seems clear to me - the subject of article "Cyclone Tracy" is the cyclone, not the victims. Per WP:Article titles (with my emphasis here), "The title may simply be the name ... of the subject of the article". The article is "Cyclone Tracy" not "Victims of Cyclone Tracy". In the policy that you quoted - Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. - the guideline linked from "Wikipedia's notability requirements" says "This notability guideline for biographies..." (and possibly standalone lists), but we are not talking about a biography (or a standalone list). WP:NLISTITEM says (emphasis in original) "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles."

Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize — I do not dispute that statement, but I do not think a collapsed list of victims in an article about an event is a "memorial". It is encyclopaedic information about a significant event. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You are not applying context clues. I told you what the policy is talking about, yet you are using irrelevant policies that do not apply to the disputed material. I did not quote that, you did. I corrected you, then you're twisting its definition. Subjects still mean, in this case, the deceased people. I don't know why you believe a list of every known person who died in the storm improves the article, which, in reality, doesn't. I'm only concerned about this because it's a vital article and I do not want to see people unintentionally decrease its quality. _ZZ^Z'S 14:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

you are using irrelevant policies that do not apply to the disputed material — I'm not "using" any policies, other than pointing out why I think NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. When you quoted NOTMEMORIAL, I pointed out that NOTMEMORIAL links ("Wikipedia's notability requirements") to a guideline about biographies or (possibly, per hatnote in WP:BIO) standalone lists, neither of which applies here. I'm not "twisting definitions", I'm stating why I think the mention of "notability requirements" in NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here.

I did not quote that — In my post, when I said "you quoted", I was referring to this edit [13] in which you do appear to be quoting WP:NOTMEMORIAL

I don't know why you believe a list of every known person who died in the storm improves the article, which, in reality, doesn't — I think the information is encyclopaedic and relevant, and it is not "indiscriminate" when included in the article.

I do not want to see people unintentionally decrease its quality — I do not think a collapsed list will decrease the quality of the article. (Although as per #List of victims - how to display it, the visual presentation of the collapsed list could probably be improved.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If you give me a realistic, concrete reason as to how such an addition is encyclopaedic, then I might consider changing my view because I can't think of one. All I can see is you trying to cram indiscriminate and trivial information (Should the reader really know the name and age of each person who died from the tropical cyclone? What usefulness does such information have?) as you want. There is nothing worth keeping from that article and it should stay that way if this article will ever become featured. _ZZ^Z'S 01:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

a realistic, concrete reason as to how such an addition is encyclopaedic — the problem is that there is (so far as I know) no single clear definition of what "encyclopedic" means, or what the objective criteria are. What are your objective criteria for deciding what is encyclopedic? I assert that the list of names is encyclopedic because it is specific factual information directly related to the event.

trying to cram indiscriminate and trivial information — it is not "indiscriminate" or "trivial", it is relevant data in context, with a well defined scope

Should the reader really know the name and age of each person who died ...? What usefulness does such information have? — One might equally ask the same question about any of the information in the article. How do we define "encyclopedic" or "useful to the readers"? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: As deleter of List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy, can you retrieve the contents of that page and put is somewhere visible, at least temporarily. I'd like to retrieve the references from it, in case they are useful for this discussion, and/or if we put the list into this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Use Wayback Machine, they have the contents here _ZZ^Z'S 14:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Wayback has the most recent revision. I'm sure that I had added more refs for specific people, including [14] (at which time I also shortened "Ruth Nazmeena Adrione Vincent" to "Ruth Nazmeena Vincent" to match that ref). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames:, I put the list of references on your talk page. I do agree with the outcome of the AFD, however, that there shouldn't be a list of the deaths. For starters, some families might not want their deceased family members' names on a list on one of the most popular websites online, and there is a policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial, nor giving unnecessary indiscriminate details in an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I put the list of references on your talk page — Thanks. Copied here for the benefit of this discussion: Mitch Ames (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with the outcome of the AFD, however, that there shouldn't be a list of the deaths. — The outcome of the AFD was that there should not be a standalone article - it did not preclude (and explicitly allowed for) the list to be included in the main article. Hence this discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

some families might not want their deceased family members' names on a list on one of the most popular websites online — That may be true, but that alone is not a reason to exclude the information. (WP:DISC, WP:UNCENSORED) It's been 50 years; we are well past the scope of WP:BLP § Recently dead or probably dead. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

there is a policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial, nor giving unnecessary indiscriminate details in an article — See my previous posts, above. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok flipping to the other side, why should the article include the list of people killed? No other tropical cyclone article has that. Just because it’s factual doesn’t mean it needs to be included. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

References