Talk:Typhoon Haiyan - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sanglahi86 (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 7 July 2022 (→top: Reclassified.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:29, 7 July 2022 by Sanglahi86 (talk | contribs) (→top: Reclassified.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Typhoon Haiyan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific / Floods Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

A news item involving Typhoon Haiyan was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 November 2013.

Misplaced Pages

Typhoon Haiyan was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 18, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 8, 2015.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Strongest ever

On cnn it said this hit 195 mph. Typhoon tip the previous record holder was 190. wtf.--150.216.254.206 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind speeds yes but not pressure. Although, an unofficial Dvorak estimation made by NOAA put Haiyan's min pressure at 862 hPa but that number is suspect as the official RSMC for the Western Pacific is the JMA. IrfanFaiz 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In 1934 storm winds of 231 mph (372 kph) were recorded. The record should be qualified against non tropical storms, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.151 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

While this storm may have had winds greater than Tip (the JTWC kept the maximum winds at 190 mph), the deciding factor for comparing storm intensity is central pressure. Officially, the JMA (the official warning center for the region) had Haiyan's lowest air pressure as being 895 hPa which is higher than Tip. — Iune (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

- Added on November 12th**

All the claims about this typhoon's being "strongest" are totally wrong. JTWC made a conversion mistake and the figure 315 km/h that was the source of all the big claims was erased from their server and you won't find a trace of it. In reality, that figure should have been 275 km/h, as seen in official Philippines' meteorological sources. The right measure of the strength is via the minimum pressure, anyway, and this typhoon is just 21st-35th in that part of the Pacific Ocean since the 1950s, see . So a similarly strong or stronger typhoon appears there once in 2-3 years or so. So I ask someone to correct this whole amazing mess and erase all the wrong comments about this typhoon's being extraordinary. --Lumidek (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

When WILL America metricate? HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(in response to User:Lumidek) Would like to clarify for a few things. Yes, intensity amongst tropical cyclones as a whole is usually determined via barometric pressure. That being said, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center utilizes 1-minute sustained winds, while the PAGASA and JMA utilizes 10-minute sustained winds. More precisely, the JTWC estimates wind speeds that are sustained for one minute - that is, if one were to measure winds for one minute, and then average measurements within that minute out. For the other agencies, they estimate wind speeds that are sustained for ten minutes. See maximum sustained wind for more details. As such, there was no conversion mistake, the JTWC determined winds to equate to 170 knots operationally, which equates to 315 km/h (195 mph), which is the highest since the 60s, though at that time instrumentation was rather unreliable. In reply to your comment of the JTWC wiping their servers to erase this 'mistake', this occurs with every operational advisory that the JTWC releases. Though it won't be confirmed until their annual tropical cyclone report is released this measurement was rather remarkable. The JTWC did not make a conversion mistake, and in the next advisory released from them they slightly weakened the storm to 295 km/h as the storm had passed over land and had actually weakened, again, still over 275 km/h. I hope that helps. TheAustinMan 03:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Austin Man, thanks, I understand that all the alerts are being rewritten and there are various n-minute averages used by various sources. That's exactly why one can never compare the figures obtained by differing methods and differing timings to claim that one storm or another was a record-breaker of any sort. There isn't any single metric to measure the intensity in which the storm was a record-breaker, not even among those that landed. --Lumidek (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already discussed this with you Lumidek. Please discontinue this discussion unless you can provide evidence aside from your own personal assumptions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that JTWC's measurements are satellite based. There are no direct measurements confirming the sustained wind speeds (at any interval) that you are quoting here. In fact, all of the direct measurements are at variance with JTWC's satellite estimates. Comparing the satellite measurements to direct measurements strikes me as bad science and smacks of advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.144.201 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If the record is measured by barometric pressure... This storm had an estimated pressure of 858 mb based on the Dvorak technique. Should Haiyan not be the most intense ever? I mean, even NOAA stated it at 858 mb. 203.218.9.66 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the lowest of their estimates; however, a more accurate estimate from NOAA (using a more recent wind-pressure conversion) was 884mb, but still an estimate. The official pressure for Haiyan is 895 mb according to the JMA, which ranks it among the top 30 storms in the basin. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you could say Haiyan is the most intense ever as measured by Dvorak technique (which is by no means official). I mean it did score a T8.0 and according to one source a T8.1. That's pretty darn high if you ask me. Though by direct/satellite measurements it is NOT most intense. 203.218.9.66 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My reanalysis says that it has 1-min sustained wind speeds of 205 mph and a pressure of 868 hPa. I’m not going to edit the page to update its wind speeds and hPa though. Bsslover371 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bsslover371: source? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Remiscence to Yolanda Saldivar's namesake?

I know Yolanda Saldivar killed Selena, but 18 years later, in 2013, Typhoon Yolanda (namesake of Yolanda Saldivar) killed 6000+ people in Tacloban.

15 December 2014, 10:56 PM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.29.61 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Effects in the Phillippines article

WP:SNOW close. No consensus to split.~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 00:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

@Destroyeraa, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, SMB99thx, Cyclone Toby, Cyclone Yoris, and KN2731: thoughts on a subarticle? Article is over 200 kB and information is better covered if subsection is provided. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. That would be majority of the article if there was a Philippines article. Maybe move more of the aftermath to Humanitarian response to Typhoon Haiyan? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Meh. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave my thoughts and I felt they were perfectly cromulent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Split?

This is crazy. 207 kB is waaaaay past the point we split. We either need to condense or split. This is unsustainable. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the above discussion, where I proposed a way of trimming down the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SIZERULE? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is to me or the IP, but I want to point out that the size rule has to do with readable prose. Much of the 207 kb is table formatting and references. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: it's to the IP. Was pointing out that 207 kB of wiki markup isn't "waaaaay past the point we split" (readable prose is only 47 kB last time I checked). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I've made a spelling change to the proposed new title. Certes (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – We are not anywhere near the readability limit in terms of prose (article size does not matter here). And unless someone plans to significantly expand the content in the Philippines impacts sections, an article split is absolutely pointless. This proposal has already been put forth and shot down multiple times now. Unless something fundamentally changes (such as a large-scale content expansion, as I had mentioned earlier), this one should also go out the door. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:31, 13 December 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. Categories: