Talk:Typhoon Nina (1975)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Todo

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It's about time someone made an article on this storm (one of the most notable tcs of all time). However there's a lot of work to do. Banqiao Dam has a lot of information about the catastrophe, though it's uncertain how we should split the information between that article and this one. What's really needed is a death toll estimate or range. The BD article says 26,000 dead of flooding (direct) and 145,000 dead of disease (indirect). This link gives 86,000-230,000 as a range; a couple other links in the BQD article may be more authoratative but they are in chinese. — jdorje (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the storm history needs some work...it shouldn't mention the dam, but it should mention the other weather systems (as I recall there was a non-tropical low meeting a cold front meeting the tropical storm). Again the BQD article and its links may be helpful. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this storm is bound to be a toughie as it occurred over 25 years ago in Asia. We've done it for century-old tropical cyclones like the Galveston Hurricane, though, and I believe we can find some way to figure this one out.Omni ND 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Typhoon Nina (1975). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070313041305/http://www.hnqx.cn:80/xqhy/xq_view.jsp?id=6814 to http://www.hnqx.cn/xqhy/xq_view.jsp?id=6814

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Typhoon Nina (1975). 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Giving this article top-importance now that this is the confirmed deadliest Pacific typhoon in history following the reassessment of 1881 Haiphong typhoon death tolls. (Haiphong reanalysis,NOAA deaths (pre-Haiphong reanalysis)) SMB9 9thx my edits 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering I'm not sure how much the storm was responsible for all the deaths (see merge proposal below), I disagree wit this for now, considering how blaanced the top importance category was (represented exactly 1% of WPTC). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge?

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No Merge. SCreditC (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that the typhoon caused the dam failure, I propose that the article for 1975 Banqiao Dam failure be merged with this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose There is currently a lot of information about the dam and the failure in the dam article. The article can stay IMO, but needs to be cleaned up. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa:, there was never a question whether or not this article would stay. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: No, what I'm saying is that there is enough information the dam failure article to not warrant a merge.~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, my bad! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Support – events are one in the same, don't see a reason for separate articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Striking support in favor of keeping the articles separated per SCreditC ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Support - Typhoon Nina has been requested to be expanded for years now. Merging these articles could end this stuff. SMB9 9thx my edits 01:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

**Neutral - This article needs to be expanded for sure, but at what cost? SMB9 9thx my edits 04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - By this point I'm not sure if this article could be expanded. It appears that dam failure might also not have been made entirely by typhoon. SMB9 9thx my edits 10:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose : The dam failure was not entirely due to the typhoon. It is also regarded as a man-made disaster. Many of the dams collapsed were built during the Great Leap Forward, for example. Merging the two pages is not respecting the nature of the disaster, and is potentially violating WP:NPOV.--SCreditC (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

But the dam failures all happened *because* of the typhoon (as stated in the first sentence of the dam failure article). The same "background" section would be in this article. The aftermath of the collapse would become the aftermath for the storm article. Given that there is still a Banqiao Dam article (since it was rebuilt), some of the content could be put there too, in addition to this article, in the event it was merged. As for NPOV, I believe the typhoon's impacts and the dam failure are too intricately linked to discuss them separately. Nina caused only minor impacts in Taiwan, and its met history wasn't that unusual. I'd imagine if not for the dam failures, the storm would not have an article now, as another typhoon that struck Taiwan and China in 1975 (Betty) doesn't have an article, or even much of a section in the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you misunderstood. I created this article and part of the content was taken out from the article of Banqiao Dam (which was re-built later). This is one of the greatest technological/man-made disasters in the history, just like the Chernobyl disaster, Bhopal disaster and Titanic, and it definitely deserves an independent page. The disaster is much bigger than the typhoon, and it killed many more people than the Chernobyl etc. Just like we do not merge Chernobyl into nuclear plants/disasters, Bhopal into chemical gas, or Titanic into iceberg, we should not merge Banqiao dam failure into Banqiao or the typhoon. In addition, 1) the 1975 Banqiao Dam Failure is a history article and the disaster had significant impacts at societal level which was closely related to China's specific historical period such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; 2) it is also a civil engineering article, because it contains many details of engineering design failures which are discussed in the article. SCreditC (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - As it appears that Nina was only a contributing factor to the dam faliure.Jason Rees (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the article about the dam failure is significantly longer than this one, so if nothing else it would overwhelm this article. The dam failure article also talks about the contributions of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution towards the failure, which would be out of place in an article about a typhoon. Hut 8.5 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.