Talk:2009 Australian dust storm/Archive 1

Vandalism
This article, being featured just recently on Wikipedia's main page, is already receiving edits from vandals. Should this article be semi-protected? Dmarquard (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Colours
Pics are them using true colors ??? That' s seems so incredibly red O.o !~ --140.120.55.60 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The very red ones were taken at sunrise or sunset. Through most of the day it's more of a yellowish colour. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - real colours. Very red. That's kind of the point. ;-) Here's a link to more photos:  --Merbabu (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all over here in Canberra; we've just had one of the largest rains two nights ago, and now all that is left of the dust storm is an orange mud on some roads. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Canterbury Park linked
Canterbury Park goes to the page for the racino in Minnesota, USA. As someone from Minnesota, I'm interested to know about a Canterbury Park in Australia, but apparently there is no page for that. 66.41.149.219 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed. (Canterbury Park Racecourse) MartinL-585 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All a massive beatup - not worth a Wikipedia entry. A big dust storm for Sydney certain, but not a big dust storm for Australia. Everyone needs to understand that the red sky in the photos is from photos taken just after dawn. Later in the day it was more of a gloomy reddish grey - and strangely nobody is posting photos of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.108 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Complain complain all you will, but please WP:SIGN your posts. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"The cloud was visible from space"
If you look at Google Maps you will see birds are visible from space. This comment adds nothing really, it's not at all remarkable for something to be "visible from space", it's simply an empty phrase that sounds impressive but really isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.158.82 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree - I've deleted the phrase. SteveBaker (talk)


 * I strongly disagree. Birds are not clearly visible from space on Google Maps. The images on GM in which you can see birds are taken from low-altitude aeroplanes - as are most of the detailed images. It is a common misconception the GM mostly entails satellite images - in fact only the broadest zoomed-out overviews are so. The comment is in fact significant - that a cloud of dust can be clearly seen as a distinct shape (bigger than many countries in the world) - and thus holds a place. 121.209.235.20 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are still misunderstanding the fact that what is visible from space depends on what you are looking through and where from. Whether or not Google Maps uses a lot of satellite imagery, satellites can see birds (or similar sized objects) from space. What would be better is something more specific, e.g. "the cloud was visible to the naked eye from the International Space Station" (I don't know if that's true or not). Simply putting "visible from space" is an unqualified statement designed for tabloids. In fact, the whole opening section sounds like a bad regurgitation of tabloid and sensationalist articles on the storm with other meaningless statements like 'The phenomenon was reported around the world' (i.e. it was "news") and 'The Weather Channel's Richard Whitaker said: "This is unprecedented. We are seeing earth, wind and fire together"' (I'm sure the storm was an amazing sight but that comment is not exactly an intelligent one). I understand the point is to convey the scale of the event, but it's not exactly encylopaedia material, is it?

Photo Legend
The satellite photo is striking. Could someone please provide information about it such as: - the area covered (e.g., from ___ in the north to ___ at the bottom left corner), - visible features (islands), - meaning of the red squares, and such.

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the comparrison to Armageddon?
Wasn't Armageddon suppose to be the site on an epic battle between Jesus and Satan at the end of the bible? How is this weather event in anyway comparable to this? Are we trying to shoehorn Armageddon into being a synonym for apocalypse or end of the world? --165.112.61.190 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Australian English Armageddon is used to refer to the Apocalypse in spoken language Fifelfoo (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just a saying, for how scary it was, it was like we were living on Mars, or maybe the Sun was really close to the Earth, and we were going to melt.Anyway, I'm an atheist.☺☻The Chosen One (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:2009 Dust Storm - Australia and New Zealand Map.png
User:Advanstra, come on, add a license before it gets deleted. Try not to be so careless in forgetting the license template next time. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Benlisquare, there is no need to be terse. The license was on the form but the upload form refreshed itself with some other difficulties, and the license went missing. Mediawiki has bots (Nikbot) and the like that inform users when something important is missing so that other users do not need to do this.--Advanstra (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Global warming
no doubt it plays a role and these storms are set to increase in frequency in the future with worsening desertification and drought. this is only the begining. I think a mention should be made of it's possible role in the article.Kotare (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Next you'll be blaming terrorism.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how it couldn't be a possibility; the Asian Dust was caused by desertification partially as a result of a changing climate in the Mongolian Desert, as well as poor government management of land. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So is global warning also to blame for the 1983 Melbourne dust storm? What about the 1971 Mars dust storm? WWGB (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There were never any bushfires, hailstorms, or tropical cyclones before global warming either. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean an increase. Sure there were fires and such in 200BC. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they had no fires then. That's when the earth was flat so there was no global warming. sheesssh --Merbabu (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise the issue of cause or origin of the storm. I think we should have such a section. This would outline some of the factors that have lead to the event, such as the rains earlier in the year washing sediment into the drier parts of the Lake Eyre Basin, the lack of vegetation from recent lack of rain in the outback and the weather system that raised the dust and brought it towards the east coast. Any suggestions of climate change as a cause would have to sourced. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Global warming is of no consequence to this issue. 121.209.235.20 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Try not to shout. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have something in the article, but don't forget to source it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I never get the external link formatting right, but reference-wise, part of what you are looking for are the Nature link below and various CSIRO studies. - Tenebris http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/full/climate.2008.29.html http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-Change-Technical-Report-2007.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.119 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Canberra?
Typical. A dust storm hits Sydney and it's international news. The same storm blows through Canberra (and the SE NSW region) the day before (22 Sep) and not a single mention. Refs MartinL-585 (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ABC News
 * The Canberra Times


 * Canberra now added to article. Bkdd (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsurprising, as Sydney is much bigger and better known than Canberra. ;) Anyway, given that the storm went first thru ACT maybe a local wikipedian should have added the info? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This happens several times a year in Canberra and does not in itself need an article. But all the cars parked outdoors became grubby and visibility was reduced to a few km, not as bad as for Sydney.  People with rain water tanks should have diverted the run off after the dust fall. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In itself, no. But since the article is about Australian dust storm, then reportage further than Sydney should have been included from the start. It should not be up to a local wikipedian to add the info. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno man... given that the ACT is our capital... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is a lot of people does not know Canberra is your capital. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tuesday's storm was not uncommon, still newsworthy but not necessarily that notable. The next day the magnitude of the storm was much greater, bearing historical significance. That is why the article developed as it did, not because Canberra is smaller than Sydney. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that what hit Sydney was of a greater magnitude than what passed through Canberra. It was more spectacular since it was there at sunrise. Anyway, my point is not about what was notable or newsworthy or historical but that the storm didn't magically start in Sydney on Wednesday - it did exist before Sydney and indeed after Sydney and since this article about an Australian dust storm, it should not have just focused on Sydney. But what's there now is fine (apart from including New Zealand in an Australian article) MartinL-585 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * New Zealand is included because its the same weather event, that had originated in Australia. Unless there is a warrant for a 'New Zealand Dust Storm' article, or the dust storm becomes known as 'Australasian' etc, then New Zealand should be here as it explains the extent of the region affected. The initial attention to Sydney was most likely because it was very rare, the strange red colour and the noteriety of the city and its landmarks. --Advanstra (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it should be Oceania dust storm, but the things is, it was the worst in Sydney.The Chosen One (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that your signature does not meet Wikipedia policy as per WP:SIGN. Fixed by user. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deathslayer-97, on what basis do you claim that "it was the worst in Sydney"? Give me some facts. Most of the media coverage focused on Sydney, but that is not to say Sydney had it worst - just had the most press. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh - let's not try to excessively fair and give every little town in Australia that experienced the dust storm equal coverage with Sydney. While of course it is not the only criteria, like it or not, media coverage is a major factor in notability. And lets face it, 80% of people who experienced it in NSW were in Sydney. Let's stop falling over ourselves trying to be too "politically correct". Correctly or otherwise, It's been defined as a largely Sydney event. Let's get over it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my signature. Whatever, I'm not sure where it's the worst.The Chosen One (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of where the storm happened must not be decided by where media chiefs and a lot of Wikipedians live. This is bad encyclopaedic practice. Even the ABC made the mistake of placing this news item in the Victorian part of their online news website, though it had no impact in Victoria. (I complained. Haven't had a response yet.) I've just edited the first line of the article to clarify that it DID NOT affect ALL the eastern states (which was what the article implied), clearly defined in Wikipedia (and in common usage) to include Victoria. Let's not behave like the Vatican in Galileo's time, thinking that we the centre of the universe. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Map of Dust Storm
This map aims to depict both the dust affected area and the movement of the dust plume at various intervals. It also shows the location of towns and cities mentioned here. The map is based on information in the article and may not be fully precise or accurate. If there are any comments, suggestions or more accurate details, please put them here. The map will be updated as appropriate. --Advanstra (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One minor correction needed is in the key where it says "Town or City with having". I think the "with" is erroneous. Also a note about sources or how you derived the shape of affected areas might be appropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arrogance of the Title
This article has the word Australian in the title. There is another Wikipedia article titled 1983 Melbourne dust storm. Why is one just Melbourne and the other Australian? Both passed through many places. Neither affected anywhere near the whole of Australia. The latter did affect parts of New Zealand. I've already had to edit the article to remove a comment that it affected the eastern states. Normal usage of that term includes Victoria, where it was raining for the period of the more recent event. No dust when it's raining.

The title smacks of seeing recent events as somehow bigger and more significant than older events, usually incorectly. It also smacks of the habit in Australia of seeing things that impact Sydney, where our media chiefs live, as more significant than those that effect other places. It is also just plain inconsistent.

We should either rename this article to 2009 Sydney/Brisbane dust storm (if state capitals affected are our measure of coverage), or rename the earlier one to 1983 Australian dust storm. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Was the storm in 2009? - yes. Was the storm in Australia? - yes. This is neither over-narrow or over-broad, whereas your suggestion would be too narrow. It is a matter of convenience.  Titles should be as accurate as possible but as long the text covers the subject adequately, there is no need for article titles to be absolutely precise. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your response has failed completely to address the points I made. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. While you may think that your specific points have not been addressed, I think Shiftchange has done a good job at explaining why the current title is appropriate. IMO, it certainly is superior to the two suggestions you offered. The title is both, accurate and convenient, both of which take precedence over notions of consistency. If you can suggest a better name - fine - but so far this is the best offered. Personally, I think your comments are a little irrelevant and miss the point - ie, the points you make seem to be of little consequence. --Merbabu (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009 East Australian dust storm, perhaps? It's confined to Eastern Australia, but not limited to one or two cities. Or maybe 2009 Queensland and New South Wales dust storm? More specific, although a bit too verbose. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "East AUstralian" could possibly work. (though I'd suggest east is spelt in lower case). It's an improvement on HiLo48's suggestion for "Sydney/Brisbane dust storm". Which begs the question, why did they titled this section "arrogance of name"? --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I maintain my position that the points I made have not been addressed. As I mentioned in my comments, you all seem to be concentrating on the most recent, Sydney centred event. Why does one of the dust storm articles refer to a single city, when the other refers to a whole nation or continent? HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we have a 1983 Melbourne dust storm article? Well because it is and has been known as the Melbourne dust storm (and you're talking about the 1980s) however the 2009 event is some what different to the on in 1983, terms of its size (1983s covered a smaller area) which covered the whole (well most of New South Wales), the ACT and parts of Queensland. Eastern Australia would suit the title but not a Sydney/Brisbane centric title as to what you've suggested. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have addressed your points - not agreeing with your points is not the same as ignoring your points. As far as I can tell, you are suggesting inconsistency and inaccuracy. As I said previously, your suggestion for Sydney-Brisbane is inaccurate and as for inconsistency, it's not that big a deal - accuracy and convenience is more important than consistency. I also acknowledged that the current title is not perfect but it is the best so far. If you have something better, let us know. THe "Melbourne" dust storm title is irrelevant to this page - if you think it really necessary (note my scepticism), then you should discuss it there. The title of an article surely takes second-priority to the article's content. Content is both far more important and more difficult to fix than article titles. Shouldn't that be where we focus our time? --Merbabu (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shiftchange et al. The dust storm affected at least SA, NSW, QLD and ACT and projections indicate dust did settle in sparsely populated areas in northern VIC and eastern NT (so an insignificant impact in comparison to NSW). Thats pretty much most of Australia (no intention to belittle WA and TAS) i.e. Eastern Australia and Central Australia. Compare with 2004 Asian Tsunami/Indian Ocean Earthquake, 2006 European cold wave, 1931 China floods etc. They dont include lists of countries/provinces/cities in the name, nor did the events cover the whole region. Often naming relates to the significant event of that type in a given region in a given time frame. Maybe we should allocates names to dust storms in the future like we do with Cyclones or convieniently use epicentres like earthquakes? Sydney got a big special mention in the article simply because it was so bizarre and unusual there, and it was pretty unusual in coastal QLD too, whereas Mildura, Broken Hill etc. has them more frequently.


 * I witnessed the both this and the Melbourne dust storm. The Melbourne storm was much more intense, more concentrated (much lower visibility) and the 300m high brown cloud front more dramatic. But Melbourne and the area to the west were the only heavily populated areas to be substantially affected. --Advanstra (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That said, the introduction "In 2009, a dust storm swept across the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland from 22 to 24 September" should perhaps read "A severe dust storm swept across eastern Australia from 22 to 24 September 2009" or something similar, and therefore get the state politics out altogether.--Advanstra (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No-one is citing any evidence about the areas covered. If largely unoccupied land gives the 2009 event the right to be called "Australian", we need to consider that the 1983 event reached New Zealand. Maybe it was the Trans-Tasman Dust Storm. It was a big dust storm. I again suggest that anyone claiming the 2009 event to be bigger is again making the double mistake of thinking recent events, and those covered in saturation by Australia's Sydney centric media, are somehow more important. Entirely unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. And as for calling the recent one eastern Australian, the fault with that name has already been discussed. I know of nowhere in Victoria affected and, by common usage, Victoria is in Eastern Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same could be said about your argument (Re: citing evidence). Yes the 1983 event reached New Zealand as have many dust storms in the past including the 2009 event. And again 2009 event was equal or more (in the terms of the amount of dust carried) to the 1983 event, 2009 event was longer (the length of the dust storm which was from the Northern Vic into QLD) where as the 1983 event was only documented that it only affected Victoria (maybe into S NSW). So really both events are not the same and should be treated diffrently (IE: 2009 dust storm should be discussed here and the 1983 discussed on its talk page but not here). Bidgee (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How about 2009 east Australian dust storm? --Merbabu (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We should aim to get both titles sensible, consistent and encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to be just accurate. "Sensible" and "encyclopaedic" are meaningless, and consistency - "meh", get it accurate first and use the Melbourne page for any changes to that article. The current title is "accurate"but I offer the above if we want to make it more precise. While  overlap in meaning, accuracy and precision are two different concepts, but accuracy is the far more important one. The current title is accurate, the question is how much precision. Your seemingly more precise suggestion of "Sydney-Brisbane" is just plain inaccurate.
 * I take it you have no comments on 2009 east Australian dust storm? --Merbabu (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On this issue, 2009 Australian Dust Storm is sensible and consistent (and probably encyclopaedic), because a majority of the news and meterological reports (see references: 'Sydney centric' or otherwise) refer to it as '2009 Australian Dust Storm' or generically as '2009 Dust Storm'. Thats how it tends be known by the general public and historians, so thats how we refer to it. A few local reports have called it '2009 Sydney Dust Storm', '2009 Brisbane Dust Storm' etc, but these are few. If these were more then thats the reason Wikipedia has redirect pages (equivalent to "See ..." in Britanica). If you can cite widespread references calling the Melbourne Dust Storm something else (eg "Melbourne and Trans-Tasman Dust Storm") than you should suggest redirects or new title on that other discussion page.--Advanstra (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "...a majority of the news and meterological reports (see references: 'Sydney centric' or otherwise) refer to it as '2009 Australian Dust Storm' "  I must submit that that is not the case. I've had a look at the references in the article. The majority of the Australian sources speak of a dust storm in Sydney, or Brisbane, or on the Gold Coast. NASA refers to eastern Australia. In fact, I haven't found '2009 Australian Dust Storm' anywhere but in Wikipedia/Wikimedia's self references.  Please show me where the term IS used elsewhere.  HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Australian Dust Storms Feed Life Explosion', 'Severe dust storm sweeps Australia', 'Australian Weather Event', 'Dust storm in Australia', 'Dust from Australia's dust storm', need i copy and paste more? The 2009 is inferred because its a current event (the year aint over yet, we may have another storm!), and will be added in by historians later on because do that sort of thing. Actually reading the articles reveals more references to Australia. Wikipedia already has a '2009_Sydney_dust_storm' page redirect. The majority of reports are from Sydney, probably because the majority of reporters and wikipedians live there, something to do with Sydney being the most populous city. Maybe we add a redirect for '2009_Brisbane_dust_storm' and '2009_Canberra_dust_storm' and so on?--Advanstra (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I didn't see those comments. (I did ask "where..?", not for random quotes.) Were they international references? So, what were the equivalent international headlines for the 1983 event? HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To an Australian who didn't experience the 2009 event (at least half of us), it will probably mostly remain the Sydney dust storm. We certainly won't call it the Australian dust storm. These names are contextual.HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Then call it what? The 2009 Queensland, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and New Zealand dust storm? Why are we going on about dust storm severity, whether the name is cited or not, how people remember the storm, whether NSW and QLD counts as all of Eastern Australia, whether an event occuring at a portion of Australia be considered "Australian", can't we just for simplicity's sake (and the use of the common name) leave it as the status quo or a minor alteration of the status quo? Is there any contextual difference in naming something verbosely as opposed to 2009 Australian dust storm? Do we really need to be so specific about a title, when the article body can explain everything for itself? Why don't we just call it the 2009 Lake Eyre Basin, Broken Hill, Cowra, Canberra, Coffs Harbour, Sydney, Ipswich, Towoomba and Cairns dust storm? Is this argument getting anywhere meaningful? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for keeping the name as it is. It did affect a significant part of Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for not spending any more time on this. The title is of little consequence if the article's content is good. --Merbabu (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also vote to keep it as it is. Perhaps revisit in a couple of years but I feel the title will stick. Already spent too much time here, unless we want this discussion featured on the home page as 'busiest discussion page of the week'. --Advanstra (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think also that the current article title should be kept as is, Since the dust storm affected not just NSW and QLD but also N Vic, NE SA and SE NT which makes Eastern Australia and Sydney rather irrelevant. The 1983 Melbourne dust storm name really should be discussed in it own talk page as it is a totally different event. Bidgee (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Australian dust storm. 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/20130420152722/http://dustwatch.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=34 to http://www.dustwatch.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=34

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Australian dust storm. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5k5bEP9jD?url=http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/dust-hail-and-deluge/1630629.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/dust-hail-and-deluge/1630629.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928034025/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26127235-421%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26127235-421%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005130610/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C%2C26125380-401%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C%2C26125380-401%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928083635/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26127172-421%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26127172-421%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Date is wrong
The day the sandstorm first hit Sydeny was the 21st semptember, not the 22nd. I know because it was my birthday on the day when the sandstorms hit, and I was living in Sydney at the time. Does the article refer to when it hit the CBD or when it hit the outermost suburbs of Sydney??? Becuase the Northern Beaches ARE sydney, suburbs to be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Minh (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)