Wikipedia

Talk:Typhoon Haiyan/Archive 2

< Talk:Typhoon Haiyan
Latest comment: 3 years ago by HurricaneTracker495 in topic Strongest ever
Archive 1Archive 2

Is Haiyan the deadliest Philippine typhoon?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Does Haiyan now have a valid claim to being the deadliest Phillipine typhoon on record? Thelma's estimate maxes out at 8,000 deaths, well above where Haiyan's current number lands. It can't claim that title until it surpasses that mark, in my opinion.--GeicoHen (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The 8,000 value is not listed as Themla's exact total though; there isn't one. It ranges from that total to as low as 5,165. Because Haiyan's death toll is higher than that lower value, it is tied with Themla as the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Tied personally sounds good except for the fact that a front cover of The Washington Herald from 1912, has been circulating around various sites for the last week or so. This cover clams that a typhoon killed 15000 people in the Philippines.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
So, if Haiyan isn't the deadliest typhoon to impact the Philippines, then which typhoon is it? LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, from the information in the infobox, it seems that the September 1881 Typhoon was the deadliest Philippines typhoon, because it killed 20,000 people in that country alone. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

missing outside Phil.

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Any updates on the missing from other countries beside the Philippines? Rmhermen (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Theres 30 dead, 6 missing per Chinas (inc Taiwan) Country Report to the WMO Typhoon Committee which brings it up to 36 dead including Vietnam.Jason Rees (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The article currently lists 14 dead, 4 missing in Vietnam; 8 dead in Taiwan; 11 dead and 5 missing in China for a total of 27 dead and 9 missing. But the box at the top of the page lists 36+Philippines for the death toll. Rmhermen (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies when i updated the pts earlier I missed the 14 deaths in Vietnam as I had only seen a source for 6 deaths in Vietnam. Assuming that the Vietnam country report does not come out later i will double check the source of the 14 deaths and add the 8 missing ones to my working list. Unless @Cyclonebiskit: beats me too it, I will update the deaths in China to reflect the WMO report.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: characteristics of the storm

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

178.208.221.120 posted this comment on December 4, 2013 (view all feedback).

characteristics of the storm

Any thoughts?

There is an image. ..ItsPaide.. 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think he means details on the storm, what Haiyan is like. I don't know exactly what he may be referring to, but I think that it's the meteorological history of Haiyan. But still, I think that this article has plenty of information. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Article gallery

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For people like us, the pictures in this article are already enough but I think other people wanted to see more. Do you think it will be good to add a gallery for more pictures for the effects of and humanitarian response after Typhoon Haiyan? That way we can satisfy both readers and "people-who-cares-more-about-images-than-words" worlds. What do you think?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 09:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Editors may wish to use these links to improve and expand the article.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

>> Philippine GDP Growth Slowed Last Quarter on Impact of TyphoonLihaas (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Article title name question

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is the article at Typhoon Haiyan rather than Typhoon Haiyan (2013)? The name is not retired.2002:70D0:4589:0:A5ED:5D3F:6932:2D10 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The name Haiyan has been retired by the Typhoon Committee during their recent meeting, besides this was one of those cases where it was so much more significant than the other Haiyans that we knew it had to have the main article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The link mentioned says, in the sections pertaining to retired names, that "the request of [country] to retire the name [typhoon name] has been noted". Is this the statement which retires the typhoon name in question, or is a final decision made in a different meeting? 2002:70D0:4589:0:5054:F83A:EE0C:3ADE (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thats the meeting alright - theres a second statement on Page 3 of that report which says "Approve retirement of [typhoon name] and request TCS to issue letters to relevant Members requesting the replacement names in accordance with the Committee’s procedure."Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please revert this article to this rev.. I can't due to edit filter. This is due to vandalism! (t) Josve05a (c) 12:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Done (t) Josve05a (c) 12:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Need update: Camille no longer 190 mph hurricane

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On March 29, 2014 the National Hurricane Center revised the top wind speed of Hurricane Camille down to 175 mph, leaving the 1935 Labor Day hurricane as the most powerful to hit the United States (185 mph in the Florida Keys, FL). I do not know if other worldwide tropical systems also hit at this wind speed. An adjustment to this article is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.148.168 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The bigger question in my mind is why Camille was even mentioned in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Actual land based measurements

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Where is the data? This storm passed over an official PAGASA weather station in Guiuan when at peak intensity. They should have measurements of its lowest barometric pressure. All decent anemometers and barometers work perfectly well without a power source and if their wind instruments didn’t survive you know they must have good barometric readings. It would be interesting to see how these actual measurements compare to satellite estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.32.206 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be interesting to see the data but im not sure it exists or if PAGASA central office will have it, since the Guiuan weather station suffered quite a bit of damage.Jason Rees (talk)

02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Guiuan weather station had communications knocked out long before Haiyan's central core reached it. The on-site recordings were destroyed due to damage, despite being a "typhoon-ready" reinforced structure. Its radar dome was completely blown off. Chilledsunshine (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually there was a good low pressure reading made at the Guiuan weather station during the eye of Haiyan of 892 mb or 26.35 inches. The only wonder is that it has taken this long for the information to come out. Dr. Jeff Masters makes mention of this reading in his blog on Weather Underground. Although yet to be officially verified there is little doubt that this is the lowest land based barometric pressure measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.34.183 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Its versus her

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Bd64kcmo: I know that Wikipedia accepts either usage, but whatever goes first stays, and I can see that prior to my first revert of you in late-May, it said "its", not "her". Dustin (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Haiyan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 8 dead links in the article...4 links with connections timeouts...and 1 with registration required...please fix asap...

1 disambiguation link in the article...Yolanda...

5 Embedded citations...please change them to inline citations...

Ref 91...Typhoon Committee...needs to be fixed into an actual citation...

Please cut down on the see also section...too many links...

Since most of these problems could take over a week, I will fail this article. You can re-nominate it when it is in a better shape.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Falsely reported for vandalism

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So I opted to revise the following statement at the beginning of the page "Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, on November 8, 2013" and adequately explained my reasoning in the summary. The "was" and "which" in the statement is grammatically inaccurate, so I thought it would be better stated as the following; "Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded; causing monumental destruction in portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, in early-November 2013." Now while adding "monumental" to the statement might seem controversial, the definition of "monumental" is "great in importance, extent, or size." which Haiyan was all of. In addition, after making it so that the statement actually makes sense and explaining myself adequately, I was accused of vandalism and my edit was reverted. 72.87.106.231 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We usually avoid using such terms like "monumental", "titanic", "of epic proportions"; because they are unencyclopedic and most used on sensationalist media. ABC paulista (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why article is named Haiyan not Yolanda?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This typhoon effected Malaysia, Micronesia, southern China, but mostly Phillipines. In the Phillippines it is known as Yolanda. Why are we calling it the Chinese name ? 50.242.190.197 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Japan Meteorological Agency is the official agency, as authorized by the World Meteorological Organization, in official charge of tropical cyclone monitoring operations in the western Pacific. As such, the names from the JMA's naming list are used for storm articles. Yolanda is a name from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Division and is only used in the Philippines. Also, PAGASA is not the official World Meteorological Organization-RSMC in charge of western Pacific tropical cyclone monitoring operations. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Why are you so discriminating against the Chinese name? It has nothing to do where the typhoon hit. There is a limited set of Typhoon names available which are used again and again. Several Pacific countries contributed their sets of names and it just happened to be China's turn. --2.245.238.161 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There has been no discrimination. The Chinese name given to the typhoon is mentioned within the Meteorological History section of the article. If you're referring to the title of the article itself, as mentioned above, Haiyan is the name assigned by the Japan Meteorological Agency, which is the official organization for the West Pacific. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Climate change

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

I have reverted the once-but-no-longer topical claims and grandstanding from various bureaucrats and editorialists compiled into a sub-section under the "Meteorological history" section. None of their statements are supported by reputable scientific analysis of the tropical environment surrounding this particular storm. If it cannot be proven, it's not "history", just speculation. Editors who insist upon resurrecting this material are reminded to stick to official sources only.--Froglich (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What does the fact that the ocean was anomaly warm or not have to do with anything? And FTR, yes, the ocean was anomaly warm, but that has nothing to do with the section at all. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Where is your evidence? Cite something. None of the present sources in the section are adequate.--Froglich (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I have just reverted section blanking in the article. If there are problems with the sourcing in that section, please discuss the alleged issues one by one, source by source. --Nigelj (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Not one of the eight sources cites a scientific post-analysis of the atmospheric and oceanic conditions surrounding Haiyan, let along comes to conclusion the storm is related to warming. The section as it stands does NOT meet the criteria of "meteorological history", as it dwells on neither.--Froglich (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So you can't find a single sentence in the article, quote it here and show how it is unsupported by its cited source? Just all eight of them at once, and the complete section as a whole? That's no use to me I'm afraid, if you want a discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(to Fnglich) Correct, but the section doesn't state that at all. It's not stating that the ocean was warmer than normal, rather, the section states the Y has connected the storm to climate change due to X. What is wrong with that? YE Pacific Hurricane 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This claim (the first sentence of the version you wish to maintain): "Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." is false in that it implies to the reader that such a causal link has been proven when such proof is not provided by any of the sources in the section, in any version you have sought to keep. Let's run through these sources (using the most recently-reverted version, in order, starting with the one at the end of that first sentence making the false claim:
  • PBS News Hour web article. The word Haiyan appears one time. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.
  • BBC piece about Yeb Sano. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited. (It should be noted that while Sano heads speaks for an outfit named the Philippines Climate Change Commission, Sano does not appear to have any published scientific research under his name, his various Youtube videos do not evince a scientific background, and my assessment is that he is just a bureaucrat.)
  • ABS-CBN piece about the hunger strike. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.
  • Guardian piece. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited. (This source is ref'd three times in the section.)
  • Huffington Post editorial. No scientific post-analysis of the storm is cited.
...clearly these are insufficient to establish any kind of proof.
Lastly, we come to the first sentence of the other paragraph you wish to keep: "The correlation between the increasing intensity of storms and the progression of climate change was discussed by climate scientists..." -- Since none of the sources actually do establish any kind of connection with Haiyan, the statement is irrelevant to this article. Or o you suppose such pontificating be cut-n-pasted into every single article of every single destructive storm which has occurred over the last umpitty-um years? Such theory discussion may be appropriate in another, speculative, article, not this one.
Given the complete lack of any credible post-analysis establishing a causal link, I have removed phrasing which falsely lends the impression to the reader that such claims are proven when they are not.--Froglich (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." that doesn't imply it's proven, it implies it has been connected (you can connected two things without proving it's true) to climate change IMO, but singe you assume otherwise, that wording could be tweaked. The PBS News article proves the fact, and while no specific scientific post-analysis has been cited, it does mention: "Studies have shown that man-made climate change contributed in a number of recent weather disasters." The BBC piece verifies the quote. Yes, Sano isn't a high-level scientist, but that doesn't change the fact that he did not say the quote. The ABS-CBN piece is fine, verifies the hunger strike tidbit. While the Guardian piece doesn't have any direct post-analysis, several quotes from officials or references to scientific assessments. Given the context, the Huffington Post editorial is IMO probably fine, but if not, I'm sure one could find a similar source that contains similar information. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You respond: "Political leaders and climate scientists connected the typhoon to climate change..." that doesn't imply it's proven..." -- but that is *exactly* what it implies. The sentence (and the word "connected" in particular) constitutes a WP:WEASELWORD euphemism which attempts to sneak claims in as if a causal link has been documented when none has. Politicians are neither scientists nor reputable purveyors of the truth in any event, and we don't even know what Sano's academic credentials are (it's debatable that this person is a "climate scientist" at all, and I have every reason to suspect that he's not given no research record). All we do know is that political grandstanding occurs after every disaster of any type (weather-related or not), and such is not notable due to Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill.
""Studies have shown that man-made climate change contributed in a number of recent weather disasters." -- That is immaterial to this article since no such "contribution" (another weasel-word) has been demonstrated in this case. (Or are you suggesting that every weather article on Wikipedia include this boilerplate if it occurred within the last several decades?). Again: run-of-the-mill.--Froglich (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Studies from past year make a direct link to Haiyan and cc, http://mashable.com/2015/06/22/extreme-weather-tied-to-warming-study/ prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Kevin Trenberth (at that link) made a direct claim (making him no different than, say, blandishments from an IPCC functionary, or Sano). But where is his journal-published, peer-reviewed post-analysis of the storm demonstrating such? (The link at that article is to a Hurricane Sandy analysis?) Otherwise, Trenberth is clearly mired in politics from an advocacy standpoint (and has obviously reaped the rewards of being on the favored side of things in the current climate), and has painted himself far outside the bounds of dispassionate scientific neutrality. You might also wish to see the "Mixed Feelings" section at the bottom of the article you've linked.
I'll let these reversions stand for a day to see if anybody can find a real meat-on-the-bone post-analysis.--Froglich (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Froglich, notice that Trenberth has contributed considerable through his groundbreaking research at UCAR to our understanding of storms, "The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities." - Warmer temperature means more water vapor, and thus more energy for storm systems. If you don't like Trenberth, take Kerry Emanuel, a republican voter, and a leading hurricane researcher, read here what he has to say. prokaryotes (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Cite the peer-review post-analysis research. -- Where is it? Generic claims in the media are just that: claims, not proof. Haiyan traveled over waters whose SSTs were not above normal, and you just removed (with your reversion) a cite showing such.--Froglich (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The science is well enough established that we don't need detailed analysis of every record-breaking storm. The fact that so many senior scientists put themselves on record at the time is notable enough for due weight to be given to the coverage. Nonetheless Haiyan continues to pop up in the peer reviewed literature as another notable example. For instance, http://www.journals.uplb.edu.ph/index.php/JESAM/article/view/1282 --Nigelj (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typhoon Haiyan. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Eye

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone noticed that the eye of Haiyan has not a single cloud inside, but there usually are some clouds in the eye of other tropical cyclones? 32ieww (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Intense tropical cyclones often have clear eyes. Dustin (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. 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) 10:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Time of arrival in Philippines Comment Suggestion

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It is quite hard in the current text to find a crucial piece of information -- that is, the time of arrival of Haiyan in the Philippines. The text, in fact, is somewhat confused about the matter. Grammatical problems in some of the paragraphs, along with a rambling presentation, make it all a bit hard to understand.

The time of first landfall, 4.40am on 8 November 2013, is identified in official reports by the Philippines Government.

The easiest and clearest place to put this information is at the beginning of the piece. This way, the reader is provided with a key landmark piece of information right at the beginning of the discussion.Pmccawley (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of this article is poorly written, but that can be fixed.
It should be noted that the date is incorrect in UTC, as 4:40 am is not yet November 8 in UTC time, which is what we (and Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers too, for that matter) use to identify dates with. Even then, it does not signal the beginning of impacts from Haiyan, as basically half the storm had arrived before the time of landfall.
All readers need to know is that it impacted the Philippines in early November. The exact timing is too much information for the lead, and really isn't that important. See WP:LEAD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
As for right now the article reads "At 20:04 UTC on November 7, the eye of the cyclone made its first landfall in the Philippines at Guiuan, Eastern Samar.". Is this not clear to you? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I live in the Philippines, writing this from Manila. I wanted to just quickly check the precise time of arrival of Haiyan ("Yolanda" in the Philippines). Simple thing to do, surely? What I found was that I couldn't find the time easily! I spent around 10 minutes ploughing through the article and ending up with confusing references. The reference to 20.04 UTC was not very helpful, actually. I'm only vaguely aware of what UTC is at any particular time of the day, and I'm not exactly sure what Philippines time is in UTC. I have a hunch that the time difference is 8 hours but it's not a fact that I refer to often and so the 20.04 UTC reference was not all that helpful. (I'd note that I doubt that 1% of the population of the Philippines know that local time here is +8 hours from UTC.)
However, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to press the issue. I think it's a pity that the piece is not helpful on this matter but I will now let it pass. My thanks Wikipedia colleagues for the discussion about this matter.Pmccawley (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The primary wikiproject uses UTC time out of consistency (typhoons occur in several timezones); I'll add a wikiink to clear this up. Regards. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of personal preference, I agree, but I'd prefer to see the Filipino local time shown. For me, at least, this is more meaningful. For comparison, see the Wikipedia page on 9/11 at September 11 attacks. There are numerous Wikipedia pages (probably thousands) which present information in local time, not UTC. However, as I say, best to move on past this discussion now. Many thanks. Pmccawley (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parts of this article should be split

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Parts of this article about the Philippines should be split into another article called Effects of Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines. The subject is certainly notable and there is an abundance of content here to work from. This proposal also follows patterns of other tropical cyclones being split out into new articles like Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York and Effects of Typhoon Bopha in Micronesia and Palau. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously but call it Effects of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, to match Effects of Typhoon Durian in the Philippines. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing people

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should we just add the number of missing people to the death count? It’s pretty obvious none of those missing were found and are probably presumed dead. A similar thing happened with Cyclone Nargis, so I want to see if we should go with this instead of being bold. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Typhoon Haiyan. 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) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we protect this page for infinite?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is prone to vandalism, so it should get protected for good. Bsslover371 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No since the whole of Wikipedia is prone to vandalism. Jason Rees (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page is at ~110 KB and therefore probably needs an archive by a more compentent editor Benica11 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benica11: I enabled archiving for threads over a year. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Benica11 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Central Pressure

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should we include the Haiyan's minimum pressure may have been low as 858 mbar, making it the strongest ever? 🌀HurricaneGeek🌀 {talk ⋅ contribs}} 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneGeek: if you can find some reliable sources(3+)that back it up, I guess. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongest ever

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments12 people in discussion

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. [1] — 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 [2]. 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(Talk·Works) 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Haiyan/Archive_2&oldid=1159705105"