Jump to content

Talk:2004 Pacific typhoon season

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


How much information?

[edit]

How much info should be put into each storm? Is the current format for what few storms I started acceptable? Hurricanehink 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For storms that don't affect land, a sentence or two is enough. Given the vast quantity of such storms it's possible they don't even need a section heading. Jdorje 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many storms?

[edit]

How come the infobox says there were 30 storms, but the storms section contains 35 storms? — jdorje (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says 30 totals storms, though there were 5 depressions that did not reach tropical storm strength. Hurricanehink 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The see User:jdorje's point. The looked back at the box, and we have 32 tropical cyclones reaching tropical storm strength. I'm guessing we either have 2 masquerading as tropical storms when they should be tropical depressions, or the box needs correction. Did I make a mistake in my edits? What was used as a reference for tropical storms for the box? Thegreatdr 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odds are it was the JTWC data; that has been the de facto source for Wikipedia in the NW Pacific. However if the JTWC disagrees with the JMA (which seems to happen quite a bit...) then the JMA's take should be what is used throughout the article IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I did...choose JMA over JTWC, and if there was a difference, state it in the article. It's difficult to tell in the other articles what was used, so I'll leave it up to the original author. Thegreatdr 23:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used JTWC, but that was before I realized it wasn't official. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The fixes are in. =) It looks like we have 29, not 30. The change has been made in the box. Thegreatdr 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sustained winds

[edit]

I'm adding conversion into knots in this article. I thought I originally had way back when, but the knots references are no longer there. Realistically, kph is probably needed, but at least knots are internationally used for wind speed. Miles per hour are not. Thegreatdr 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Finish the storm summaries. In addition, someone copied and pasted the summaries for Malakas and Aere. Copy and paste is not allowed. Hurricanehink 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...why not if it doesn't affect the format? Won't this effort take an eon otherwise? User Talk:thegreatdr 13:46, 9 May 2006
Copying and pasting is not allowed. It won't take an eon to fix. You should summarize the information, not steal it. Ideally, the storm section is two paragraphs. The first is storm history (its origins, when it formed, track, peak, landfall, dissipation). The second is impact (rainfall totals, deaths, and damage). Hurricanehink 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an attempt to summarize the few storms I threw in there for the Western Pacific and South Indian Oceans...but now that I know the format, additional changes are needed. What if the impacts are as significant as they were in Aere, the west Pacific typhoons that are still unfilled for 2004, or the pair of South Indian Ocean cyclones I threw in? Does that mean they deserve their own individual pages? I'm still new to all this. User Talk:thegreatdr 02:41 UTC, 10 May 2006
Individual pages are not needed. Sourcing is what is needed. You don't need to go into too much detail on the season article. All you have to summarize, and provide a link for further reading. For a storm like Aere, all you have to do is summarize the last three paragraphs into original wording and less unneeded details. If turning those three paragraphs into one is impossible, a new article could be warranted, though try to consolidate the information as much as possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the text of the summaries and provided references for the ones that were added, and included conversion to mph where appropriate. Satellite images have been added as well. User Talk:thegreatdr 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you still have to put it into your own words. The biggest giveaway that you didn't is the 11/1800 UTC, which appears in a lot of sections. The easiest way to summarize it is to simply start a new section. You have the information and sources. All you have to do is use them, not steal them. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you didn't read the source material, or you'd know it was reworded from the original. So I conformed to a uniform dd/hhmm format...isn't this all supposed to be in UTC? Technically, all of this is copied from elsewhere, so I don't understand your attitude concerning this issue, especially since I added the needed references to the sections I added, which hasn't been done elsewhere in this document (um...wasn't that mandated?) I thought you wanted/needed help with this project, or would you rather write your 15 word entry yourself, which is bound to be the same as something else written somewhere else on the web? There has to be a minimum of detail, or the article is worthless. There are only so many ways to say "Cyclone formed, moved westward, strengthened, and died as it moved inland" User Talk:Thegreatdr 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I'm really sorry! Sometimes, my computer goes back to an older version, and I think this was the case here. I see you did rewrite them, but the UTC does have to go. Every other article uses the Month Date format. Good job with them. Some of the writing throughout the article don't make much sense, and some places you skip around a bit, but it is better than nothing. For what you last said, you are 100% right. Repetitiveness is bad, but so is not enough information. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the UTC references for the 2003 and 2004 Pacific typhoon sections I added/modified are removed. I changed the dates into approximate local time, since UTC is roughly 10 hours behind local time in the Far East. We still need references added for the early 2004 storm sections. User Talk:thegreatdr 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Typhoon Nanmadol have a seperate article anyone agreee. Storm05 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that with a few of the storms on the page, particularly Aere and Nanmadol. I'll leave the individual storm pages up to you all, but I would think so User Talk:thegreatdr 01:35 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo2

[edit]

Most storms have enough information. Some have too much and should probably split into sub articles. The use of ≤br≥ for formatting is bad; you can't use this to space pictures because with different text sizes it will look differently. Instead use {{clear}} or {{clearleft}}/clearright to force breaks between pictures. Finally, some sentences like "Songda is a branch of the Red River in Vietnam." just seem abrupt and out-of-place; this trivia should be merged into the existing paragraphs rather than taking up their own paragraph, and should be stated more clearly (Songda is a typhoon; the name comes from a branch of the RR in Vietnam). — jdorje (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the clear commands. I'll start using them instead of ≤br≥. User Talk:thegreatdr 18:05, 23 May 2006 (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) 08:49, 11 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) 08:49, 11 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) 08:49, 11 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) 08:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanmadol

[edit]

Anybody think that Nanmadol needs its own article? I think that a typhoon that made landfall at Category 4 status deserves an article to itself. Just throwing it out there Nikkywikky321 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but make sure more information is out there so you know you can expand it into a full-blown article. Nowadays, enough information should be available for the northwest Pacific TC online, but make sure it's not from blogs. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songda Article

[edit]

The second costliest typhoon on record, over 9 billion dollars in damage. I think this deserves an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.12.101 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Feel free to make one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Fixing

[edit]

There is definitely some errors in this article that need to be fixed. For one thing, Typhoon Imelda certainly didn't have a pressure of 8001 mbar, considering thats about 8 atm. Im fairly certain that typhoon Chebia didn't have a pressure of 92 mbar (<1% atmospheric pressure) and didn't have a windspeed of mach 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.223.79 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2004 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2004 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2004 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) 02:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2004 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) 05:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=1196391787"