Jump to content

Talk:1999 Pacific typhoon season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Should be a start class article. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you think a lot of articles should be upped from stub to start. Given the big change, you should probably bring it up on the assessments page of what needs to be done for a WPAC typhoon season page to be start class. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way is this a start. One very basic fact of the season is the storms themselves - a brief description of them should be mandatory for a start. For example, tell me about Virgil. Was it a typhoon or a tropical storm? Where was it? When was it? Did it do anything? If the article can answer those questions it is a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment, part 2

[edit]

This is still not a start-class article. Season articles need info on all the storms in order to be start. --Coredesat talk! 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB says that stub articles are short incomplete articles (ie, Kamikaze (typhoon), Typhoon Paka, 1-2-3 rule, etc), and 17-20 paragrphs is not considered short. Storm05 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a recommendation. We have different rules at our Wikiproject. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know, because techally (pardon the spelling) the rules of Wikipedia trumps all over rules of Wikiprojects, etc. Storm05 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It's not absolutely necessary to follow the guideline. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, how about waiting for me to finish? I'm going slowly (because of distractions elsewhere)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And I put it at stub class again. It doesn't have every storm yet. Once it does, it will probably be B class with a possible FAC run and skip start, but given that it's missing four storms, it does not meet our criteria for start class. Yes, this isn't a stub article based on Wikipedia's standards, but it is only a guideline. For here, our standards are what counts. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are tropical depressions supposed to go here? What about ones just monitored by PAGASA? And where do you find names (correctly matched) to the official ones? I was looking for those for 1981-84, but to no success. Good kitty 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the infoboxes use JTWC winds with JMA pressures? In many cases it's ridiculous - Tanya (50kt/1000 hPa from JMA), a JTWC Cat 1, with only 1000 hPa min pres? I say in the infobox either use JTWC evenly or JMA evenly, but not both. – Chacor 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JTWC didn't carry the pressures (at least not in BT or ATCR); you know a source? I'm not 100% sure they strictly follow the relationship in Dvorak. I decided using JMA pressures was preferable to "unknown" pressure for them all.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks right, there's no pressure given for 1999 in the PDF files either. Seems weird that they dropped pressures from the ATCR. Bloody JTWC. I suppose the other alternative would work too, using RSMC Tokyo information in the infobox instead. – Chacor 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody JTWC sounds about right ;) Actually I'm not sure JTWC ever stated pressures for these stormsl comparing the data at the NRL: Compare Bart and Rusa. I'm leery about changing to RSMC data for the infobox, the prose uses the JTWC in accordance with what we previously agreed to do (2000 and on JMA, earlier JTWC). There are three alternatives really: abandon the JTWC entirely, work out if we can safely apply the numbers in Dvorak technique and then use those or when the small infobox is redone make pressure an optional parameter (so if there is no pressure info we can drop it). When I get home tonight (gotta go class now), I'll plug all the WPac ATCF data I can find into a spreadsheet and see if the pressure/wind relationship is strictly applied. If it is I think we can extrapolate it back without OR concerns.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1994 ATCR does have pressure listed, so they must've dropped it between 1994 and 1999. – Chacor 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... This is the JTWC's fault. The data is in the ATCR see table 1-1 on this page. This is them being complete idiots though, surely the MSLP is a fact that should be in the individual storms reports.... I'll fix the article in a min.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can always change the way it is done. We really should use JMA information since they became an RSMC. I remember someone stating (on one of these pages) that is since 1989. We can use JTWC for years prior to the inception of the JMA as RSMC. Thegreatdr 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tables are true for most of them. I found them in the NIO ones. Good kitty 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll review it, since it's been up for a while.

That's it through Wendy. Lemme know when you finish that so I can continue. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first look through the article. Mostly minor things, but a few big things that need to be done (notably what's immediately above). Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, and what could be the biggest thing that needs to be done, the article needs to be converted from JTWC to JMA, meaning all of the winds in the article should have JMA as a default (and possibly add it as a note that they're from there, and they're in 10 minute winds, see 2002 Pacific typhoon season). I could help with the process, but I'm afraid I'd have to stop my review if so. You're welcome to withdraw, and I'd help you in the conversion, since you did a good job with the prose. Just throwing it out there. And it shouldn't take as long next time to get it reviewed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better already. Just some more JMA converting needed, and I added a few other replies above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any questions about the outstanding issues? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still working on the article? It's quite close, but if work isn't continued, then I'll have to fail the GAN. It's been up for a month now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much more time is left before the GAN gets failed? I will need to find some time to work on it in the coming days. Hurricane Andrew (444) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been up for a month. How long til you think you can finish it? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. 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}}).

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) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. 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, 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) 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]