Wikipedia

Talk:2013 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 3

< Talk:2013 Pacific typhoon season
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

2013 Pacific typhoon season damages

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was double checking that the total damages is correct, but it exceeded to $25 billion. It state that Typhoon Fitow has damage loss of $10.4 billion. Is anyone sure about this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Its correct per the CMA Country report to the WMO, Fitow caused a direct economic loss of 63 billion RMB to China which equates to about $10.4 billion.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yutu's pre 1-min winds

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've red all of the information about Tropical Storm Yutu and it also states there that the JTWC classified it as a subtropical low/cyclone. So, I've just put that it was also a subtropical cyclone in Type 2 on the top. Is that OK? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Records and other info

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For when the article is eventually rewritten, I came across this source

  • [1] - it says Vietnam was struck by a record 19 storms, compared to the average of 10-13 per year.

There is probably more info out there, but this is a start. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary on my recent reversion of Jason Rees

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I was cut off prematurely in my edit summary again by the enter key, so I will just say, the National Hurricane Center, while it isn't responsible for typhoons which are done by the JTWC in the US, should be trusted as knowing how to use the capitalization. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php Dustin (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also a PDF here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws.pdf Dustin (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1) The JTWC is not responsible for the Western Pacific - its the JMA. 2) Just because the NHC tends to captialize the word Cateogry i dont see that as an excuse to ignore the basic laws of grammar - im sure i could probably dig up several documents that dont captialize the word.Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I said "in the US". Second, the categories are obviously names otherwise they wouldn't capitalize it. Please find some official (WMO), scholarly publication to disprove that. Third, the JMA doesn't use the SSHWS at all. Your revision is simply denying the official usage of the scale. Dustin (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No i am not denying the official usage of the scale as you have not provided any sources that tell me that the official way to use the SSHWS is with a capital C for category. All you have provided me with a random page that the NHC have on their website, which imo goes against the laws of grammar and what other warning centers like the BoM do. Also i notice that in several formal reports that the NHC uses the lower case c rather than a Capital. Also the JTWC is only an official warning center for the United States Military/Government and not the public which are expected to use NWS Guam.Jason Rees (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Some random page hmm...? Did you even look at the PDF? Every single usage of Category X was capitalized. I think the actual description page for the SSHWS itself holds more importance than some random reports. "Category" should be capitalized when used in the form "Category X". You'd be having to change almost every Wikipedia usage to fit your lowercase version anyway. Dustin (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked at a variety of sources on the NHC and other places that host formally published reports and came to the conclusion that the NHC does not dictate that we should capitalize it as otherwise they would be consistent all the way through. Also i seriously doubt that most wikipedia usage of Category X is capitalized but there are ways to change it very quickly.Jason Rees (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am guessing that you didn't even look regarding "i seriously doubt that most wikipedia usage of Category X is capitalized". There must be hundreds of articles. Dustin (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, the reason I said this is just because I think you should have done more analysis first. Dustin (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
DVS is right; pretty much everyone in the project capitalizes the C. And why does it need to be changed? It's never been an issue before AFAIK, and we've had over 200 FAC's. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin i did quite a bit of analysis, but guess what "i dont care if pretty much everyone in the project capitalizes the C" - As i have shown the warning centers do not always capitalize the C and as a result i think its wrong and needs changing since imo its a grammatical error.Jason Rees (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't think it is a grammatical error. I have reason to believe that when used in form "Category X", the word category is part of a a name for said category. In the English language, this would be within the rules of grammar as names should be capitalized. In any case, there are always going to be some others who go against the standard usage. That doesn't make caps any more or less official. Dustin (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Storm articles and what to do with them

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If you are seeing this, good. When I joined Wikipedia, I'm sorry that I made too much articles and now I understand with storm articles. I was thinking to delete the less important ones. However I might keep the minor articles which have been improved by other users. The articles which I want to delete are:

Also as I said about 'to keep the minor articles', I'm saying articles like Bebinca (because the information there added by other users there was necessary) and Francisco (which was now classified as a GA article somehow). What do you guys think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This season article is long enough as it is though. IMO we can be more leniet with articles. The only one that really looks borderline is Man-yi. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you @Yellow Evan:. Man-yi looks really boring. For me, same with Cimaron actually. The Podul and Lekima articles should have an article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There's probs more out there for Cimaron. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixing ups (maybe last)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you guys are seeing this, then good. According to the criteria, this article is a Start and we want to raise it because we have Haiyan as a 'popular' storm in 2013. So in the next several days (possibly by next week), I will start doing a major fixing ups on this article. Because look, the section of Haiyan is poor and doesn't have sources and others! Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I might investigate this tomorrow. Thank you for the message. Dustin (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Upgrading this article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had a thought that if we make this article better (like adding more info to storm sections + adding refs etc) this article could bump up to a C (or maybe even a GA) imo. The 2013 PTS season had lots of events especially like Haiyan, also the season is one of the active seasons since 2004. Just like what I am doing in the 2015 PTS article, I could do the same here soon. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013 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.

 Y 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:Offline 00:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2013 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}}).

 Y 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 01:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_3&oldid=1145832235"