Talk:1999 Pacific typhoon season

1999 Pacific typhoon season was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 5, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oceania Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oceans Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Oceans To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles
Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea
Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans
Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep
Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1999 Pacific typhoon season was copied or moved into Tropical Storm York with this edit on 13 August 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

[Untitled]

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

This is still not a start-class article. Season articles need info on all the storms in order to be start. --Core des at 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.--Nilf anion (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.--Nilf anion (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.--Nilf anion (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