This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance 2010–2011 Queensland floods is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Weather: Floods Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Cyclone Tasha isn't particularly notable outside of its contribution to the 2010–11 Queensland floods, and the impact of the cyclone itself and the large-scale flood event cannot be easily distinguished. The storm's meteorological history and the rainfall it produced could easily be covered in the background section of this article. SolarisPenguin (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Cyclone Tasha is notable, as per WP:NEVENT, for being a catalyst for a larger event and for significantly impacting a wide region of Australia enough to have its name retired. There are also effects from Cyclone Tasha outside of Queensland, which would be removed if the geographic scope of this article is not increased. I'm skeptical about how indistinguishable the effects between the flood event and Cyclone Tasha’s interaction with a monsoon trough are because each happened at different times. However, if they cannot be distinguished, then I would be okay with merging, although I’d recommend merging this article into Cyclone Tasha instead. FourNoddlers (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Oppose. Cyclone Tasha's content should be copied, not merged. FourNoddlers (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of its contribution towards the Queensland floods, there is not much information on the cyclone's impacts. SolarisPenguin (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in that article disprove your argument. FourNoddlers (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources discuss the effects of its rainfall, which can be covered here as it was part of the wider flooding. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The areas were not in Queensland. That would be adding information outside the article's scope. I still don't see why the content shouldn't be copied and pasted. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The information about its effects in NSW can just as easily be added to the storm's section in the 2010–11 Australian region cyclone season article, which is currently quite short. If you copy and paste all the content that relates to the Queensland floods into that article, there isn't much information remaining about Tasha itself. SolarisPenguin (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it should be done. And how is that a bigger problem than merging a stand-alone article about a notable event? FourNoddlers (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the storm is not notable once you factor out its contribution to the Queensland floods. That's why I'm proposing it be merged. The tiny amount of information that's not relevant to the Queensland floods can be moved into the season article. SolarisPenguin (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that the storm is notable. That was not counter-argued. Why are we excluding certain impacts from the notability criteria anyway? FourNoddlers (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can be covered in the destination article... No use having two articles about the same thing. SolarisPenguin (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the merger makes sense. Even the Australian government says the floods started in November, were made worse by Tasha, and then continued into January, with a major flood event happening on 10 January. So Tasha wasn't the catalyst for the event, just a part of it. Also, Tasha's impacts outside of Queensland appear minimal, so the one sentence of New South Wales impact could go into the 2010–11 Australian region cyclone season, along with any information about Tasha that's not about the flood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what being a catalyst is. Cyclone Tasha] can be expanded, and sacrificing a potential article about a retired storm is not required. Copying the information or merging the floods into Cyclone Tasha should be considered first. FourNoddlers (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The article isn't being sacrificed if the content still exists; nothing is lost except the title and the url, which are not important. Also, if the same content is copied across two articles, that's considered a problem and pretty much automatically qualifies the two articles to be merged. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per nom, with the option to also sort content into 2010–11 Australian region cyclone season as needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]