Talk:Typhoon Morakot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Currency

"Damages from the storm amounted to at least $1.4 billion in China[5] and more than $2.1 billion in Taiwan." - are both figures in USD? --JensMueller (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2 billion USD in damaged crops? I don't think so ... Btw, this contradicts the infobox: "Damage $1.6 billion (2009 USD)". http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2009/08/11/219923/Typhoon-induced-farm.htm now reports 5 billion NT$ farm losses. --JensMueller (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you actually meant no? Because someone fixed the numbers. But the currency is still unspecified. There are other dollars in the world than only USD! --JensMueller (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea....I was a little bit ignorant on that one, my bad. I corrected it to ~NT$6.9 billion ($209 million USD) so the total damages are $1.6 billion Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the numbers are still a bit strange. The 6.85 billion New Taiwan Dollars (about 209 million U.S. dollars) are correct, they are agricultural damages in Taiwan. The 1.4 billion $ in China are not mentioned on the ref (instead, 1.4 million people evacuated are mentioned). The ref says: "Direct economic losses have amounted up to 9 billion yuan (1.3 billion U.S. dollars), it said." (economic losses, not only crops!) --JensMueller (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The amount in China is mentioned in reference 32 "It said direct economic losses have been estimated at 9.7 billion yuan ($1.4 billion)." and that's for mainland China only, not Taiwan. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The sentence is correct for China, but misleading for Taiwan, because the figure for Taiwan does not even estimate the entire damage, it only refers to agricultural damage. --JensMueller (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hsiaolin mudslide

I created a new article just about the mudslide in Hsiaolin. I think that this event is notable by itself given that the death toll is probably somewhere between 100-400 people. [1]. Please help out with this page. Remember (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Someone just redirected the mudslide article to this article. Perhaps it might be good to discuss on this page whether the mudslide article should exist as a separate article. Obviously, I think it should but I am willing to listen to opposing views. Remember (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the major mudslide in Taiwan? IMO, that shouldn't have a separate article as the main article for Morakot will have more than enough room for it since that's where most of the storm's fatalities occurred. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a notable event to constitute its own article, potentially, but it contains far more info in the main article, I am certain you could cram it into the main article. The idea should be that that section is expanded until too big and then split into that article. The way it was done gave me no reason to believe who started it was going to expand it. Add information to the main article first, split later when there is enough info for a decent article I say.. Ooh, did you intend writing at least a start article on it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you and I just have different philosophies of how to start articles. My philosophy is just to get notable page articles up and running even if they are just stubs so that other editors can easily come in and assist. I believe your philosophy is to keep a notable sub-event lumped into the main event until it can be easily branched off and stand on its own. I don't really care that much on how this article is created, I just want to help facilitate the creation of articles on notable events. If your method helps create a good article on the mudslide faster than my method, so be it. I just feel that this event is definatly notable by itself and should be fully described by wikipedia. As for whether I was intended to create a start article on the event, I was planning on it, but I probably don't have enough time for that now 'cause I have to run pretty soon. Maybe I will try later. Cheers. Remember (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its better to clean and expand this article and then consider Subarticles.Jason Rees (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Rees. This article is not yet too long. As more details become available we may decide to give the town a special section of the article. If that section becomes too large we can make it a separate article. But at this point there is a lot we don't know. Readin (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Xiaolin(Chinese Pinyin) versus Hsiao-Lin (Wade-Giles) or Siao-Lin (a local Pinyin)

Uniform romanization would be nice ... But which one? --JensMueller (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hanyu Pinyin is the official romanization internationally, in the PRC, and as of 2009 in the ROC. So Xiaolin would be the correct romanization. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And another one has appeared: "Hsiao-Lin" (Wade-Giles?). So shall we change everything to Xiaolin? --JensMueller (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And another one: "Siaolin" - this is getting messy ... --JensMueller (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Local English newspapers render it as Hsiao-Lin in Wade-Giles or Siao-Lin (local pinyin), similarly the stricken district is Jia-Sian (local pinyin), or Chia-Hsian (WG). CNN reports everything in WG, like Pingtung county or Kaohsiung county or (shudder) Taipei City. I think it is respectful to use terminology that the locals use.

Can i ask what you are on about please? Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. --JensMueller (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply put what is romanization? - I just want to know as im trying to write up the MH for Morakot and this seems relevant Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain in brief: Pinyin, or Romanization, is type of transliteration, a way to render in the Latin alphabet the Chinese characters. The Hanyu (Chinese) Pinyin is the standard in China. However, it is very hard to pronounce correctly for Americans. There is a local Pinyin which allows the rendering of Taipei Mandarin (slightly different from Mandarin Chinese), Hakka and Taiwanese with compatible spelling. Finally there is Wade-Giles, the traditional transliteration which also seeks to capture the intonation. County and city names such as Taipei, Hsinchu (pronounced shin-chu), Pingtung, Kaohsiung (pronounced kao-shong, Hsi in Wade-Giles is equal to Xi in Hanyu is equal to Si in local Pinyin), Taitung, etc., are all Wade-Giles. CNN usually uses Wade-Giles for place names. Most Taiwanese people who travel abroad also prefer to transliterate in Wade-Giles or local Pinyin, and spell names with a hyphen, since they usually get treated better when they are distinguishable from PRC-passport-carrying Chinese. -- an American working in Taipei.

An anonymous editor wrote "Hanyu (Chinese) Pinyin is the standard in China" To clarify, Hanyu Pinyin has also become the standard in Taiwan recently (the village is in Taiwan). Whiles Hanyu has been the standard in China for decades, and the most common standard internationally for many years, it became the national standard in Taiwan only this year (but as part of making it a standard for Taiwan, well-known English names like "Taipei" and "Kaohsiung" were left as they were) . Prior to that there was a period where the standard was in flux as the political process tried to work out a standard. And before that, WG was the standard for decades. I don't understand why CNN and the local English news papers are using the old standard whether than the new one. Perhaps the new standard, despite being the legal one, hasn't caught on yet. Perhaps the CNN reporters don't know about the new standard (the seem to not devote much coverage to Taiwan). Readin (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres a simple way to settle this without too much disscusion and that is to see what the UN uses in their reports about Morakot and follow that.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that any simpler than just using what CNN says or just using what a randomly selected local newspaper says? The UN has nothing to do with Taiwan. Readin (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was just a thought based on the fact that the UN is the WMO who control the JMA who is in charge of the basins naming and monitoring of systems.Jason Rees (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the anti-democratic nature of the UN, Taiwan's 23 million people are unable to have any representation in either the UN or the WMO. Naming one of their towns based on the preferences of an organization that refuses to recognize their right to representation could be considered pretty offensive. Readin (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find they get a voice under the CMA but I dont want to cause any offense or arguements since i do not know much about the UN postion on Taiwan.Jason Rees (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only CMA I can find related to the topic is the "Chinese Meteorological Association" which appears to be an association controlled by China, so it is very unlikely that Taiwan would have any voice there. China is the actor in the UN that prevents the UN from accepting any representation of the Taiwanese people. Readin (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rainfall records

I've tidied up the rainfall table as best I can, using referenced sources, but this is not complete. Can somebody with access to the Taiwan Central Weather Bureau reports please update the reported peak rainfall figures for 48, 72 & 96 hours? Or delete these lines from the table. Thanks. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The table Comparison with world rainfall records now doesn't make any sense at all. I presume the column headed Record prior to Morakot actually refers to Morakot's figures and the column headed Marakot total refers to the previous record. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherway around i believe.Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, and Morakot doesn't break any records, shouldn't the column Record prior to Morakot simply be headed Record or Existing record? As it is, the wording suggests that the record no longer stands, whereas the figures in the table show that Morakot didn't reach those levels. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've adjusted the table headings. They were a hangover from when an over-excited editor was quoting world-record-breaking rainfall from Morakot, which is where I got involved trying to reference the claims. In fact Morakot did break just about every rainfall record in Taiwan, but I can't find CWB data anywhere in English to show comparisons. Ideally another column of this table could show the previous records for Taiwan, which would be more informative, if anyone could get the data. Alternatively, it would be nice to include references in this article [[2]]to the Taiwan records broken. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My simple mind can get its head round it now! Good luck with your search for the records. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When was Taiwan a country?

I think at links for Taiwan should be directed to "Republic of China" as it is the correct country/government representing the region - it also includes the surrounding islands of Pinghu, Matsu etc. The page for "Taiwan" is a page about the region of Taiwan rather than a country. To maintain consistency the above should be upheld - if we're going to classify regions than why isn't there a part on Okinawa? This is the correct course of action and maintains an absolutely neutral POV. (Kraj35 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Theres no part on Okinawa because the whole of Japan was affected by Morakot. As for taiwan - ROC i think its fine as is. Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of China article is about the government and state. When you seen information about a typhoon's effects on a place, you don't want to click on the place and be taken to an article about politics. The Republic of China article is separate from the Taiwan article for reasons of history and politics. Unlike most governments, the Republic of China moved from where it originated (China, or mainland China if you prefer) to Taiwan. For more than 30 years it was in one place, then over the course of 5 years it gained new territory (Taiwan) and lost nearly all of its original territory (China/mainland China). If the Republic of China article were to be about a place, which place should it be about? There is also the question of politics, with both the ROC and PRC pushing irredentist claims to the other's territory. So having a properly named ROC article (using the common name "Taiwan") would cause complaints from Chinese nationalists. So we separate the articles and generally follow a convention where you discuss the "Republic of China" when discussing the government/state, and "Taiwan" when discussing things associated with the place/country. Readin (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point Readin, but there are many who maintain that Taiwan is in fact part of China, myself included - this is also official PRC and ROC policy, no government in the world states that Taiwan is not a country in its own right. Without going into the politics and history of it, I think that a balanced and neutral approach is to have "Taiwan" on the article link to the "Republic of China" - its a sensible compromise. I think the article should be categorized by country states/governments, rather than by regions. (Kraj35 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

And there are many who maintain that Taiwan is not part of China. Wikipedia does not endorse either view. Why should an article on a typhoon and its impacts on a region be linked to government articles? It's not like the typhoon struck the government apparatus. Now, if we did choose to include in the article information about the governments - for example in Taiwan there has been a lot of criticism of President of the Republic of China President Ma - then it would make sense in those context not just to link to the ROC article, but to actually use the term "Republic of China" (with the first use followed by "(Taiwan)" to assist the vast numbers of English-reading users who have no idea that the "Republic of China" is the government of Taiwan). Readin (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another problem of using Taiwan is that it does not imply the surrounding islands of Pinghu, Kinmen and Matsu which were also affected - by linking "Taiwan" to the article Republic of China it also recognises that the above minor islands were affected. The reason why I put forward the use of country/government articles is that there is far less disambiguity. Let me explain - when you use "China" and link to China - this is very ambiguous, some may think this includes Taiwan and surrounding islands, other think it does not. When you use "Taiwan" and link it to Taiwan confusion arises over what actually encompasses "Taiwan" - traditionally it does not include islands like the Penghu, Matsu Islands which are off the Fujian coast, but we know that when we are speaking of Taiwan we are also talking about Penghu, Matsu in this article, as it is not a part of China (mainland). This is where specifically stating the political entities clarifies the areas of control and boundaries - when speaking of the PRC readers know we are speaking about China excluding Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, etc and when we are speaking of ROC we are speaking of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, etc. Without this clarification and disambiguity, what I ask you is: are Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu etc part of "China" or "Taiwan" in this article? Using the officially political names does not mean that the cyclone has anything to do with the government, rather it clarifies as ambiguity in the controversial terms of China and Taiwan and what constituents the above.(Kraj35 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

I notice Kraj35 was linking "China" to People's Republic of China. That's probably ok. The PRC article does talk about a lot more than just the government/state. The China article probably isn't the best fit because it is more of a historical article. Again for political reasons and the difficulty of getting agreement from editors with strongly held views, the China article is about the "civilization" rather than being about China. For places where "mainland China" is used, the redirect should almost certainly be made because the mainland China article mostly talks about the term, the borders, and the politics rather than the geography, people, etc. Readin (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Mainland China would perhaps be a better choice. Hong Kong and Macau issue their own advisories, etc., and they report their own statistics on damages, loss and casualties, albeit being part of the PRC as Beijing defines. Morakot did not hit these two territories, but a uniform standard have to be established. Quarrian (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've identified a long-unnoticed problem with our method. We have numerous links to "mainland China" when trying to distinguish between Taiwan and China in nonpolitcal contexts where both countries are discussed (by general consensus the "mainland" is included to avoid offending Chinese nationalists who believe Taiwan is part of China). However, in most of these contexts we really should be linking to an article that is about more than borders and politics. I need to find a good forum to discuss this and come up with a solution. Of course, like most discussions on this issue, it will probably end in stalemate and nothing will change. But I should try anyway. Readin (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Taiwan" is well known in the English language as a common shorthand name for the Republic of China, including outlying islands. Even the PRC recognizes this, calling it the "Taiwan area" administered by the "Taiwan authorities" on their state run media. This is an article about weather, not politics, and political names shouldn't be used here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Country order

Right now we have Philippines-Japan-China in the preparation section, Japan-Philippines-Taiwan-China in the Impact section, and Philippines-Taiwan in the aftermath section. What is the logic behind these orderings? Shouldn't it be chronological (or maybe alphabetical)? Readin (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the track map it should be in the order Japan-Philippines-Taiwan-China-Korea. Though Japan and Korea could and probbably should be merged together Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Morakot hit mainland Japan after passing through South Korea? Was it an extratropical low rather than a tropical cyclone by then? Quarrian (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No - Morakot affected mainland Japan before affecting taiwan china korea. Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know it affected only the island Okinawa and the rest of the southern Ryukyu Islands before hitting Taiwan. It did not affect the main islands of Japan (e.g. Kyushu, Shikoku) before Taiwan. Quarrian (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Acctully according to the JMA Yokohama was affeted by Morakot which is not surprising since morakot was rather large.Jason Rees (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Taiwan and China"

It is unclear why the two are grouped in the "Preparations" section. The two prepared separately, and the section could easily be split because their separate preparations reflected in separate sentences. Readin (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They are grouped together as there is never much preps to write about from either country unless the HKO or Macau issue their signals - thus its better to keep them together IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added some text on oil deliveries in East Asia. Hope this works. Aptak (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good thanks Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Typhoon Morakot. 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/20090816004315/http://ca.news.yahoo.com:80/s/afp/090812/world/taiwan_weather_typhoon to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090812/world/taiwan_weather_typhoon

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Typhoon Morakot. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dynasmon.fortunecity.com/PAGASA.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dynasmon.fortunecity.com/PAGASA.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6eatUwlDQQIHZiKqXjLHTmQSrogD9A0N4601
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6eatUwlDQQIHZiKqXjLHTmQSrogD9A0IM281

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Casualties given for Taiwan are confusing

The numbers given for casualties in Taiwan are wildly inconsistent. Since Morakot is notable for the related death and damage, and the bulk of those deaths were in Taiwan, Taiwan casualties could be many readers' dominant interest in Morakot. Furthermore, the confusing figures are scattered throughout the article. So I have tagged the article as confusing. Here are the inconsistencies I found (with my notes in brackets):

- …catastrophic damage in Taiwan, leaving 461 people dead and 192 others missing,

- One mudslide buried the entire town of Xiaolin killing an estimated 500 people in the village alone. [more than Taiwan total]

- The entire village of Xiaolin was buried in the southern county of Kaohsiung killing 439 people [less than "estimated 500"]

- Close to 700 people were killed or missing as a result. [exact figure given = 653]

- Reports indicated that at least 600 people were missing throughout southern Taiwan. Most were residents of Xiaolin…It is estimated that 118 people died in the village [less than "estimated 500", less than exact figure of 439]

- The coast of Keelung, Taiwan, where…18 people were killed, 35 were injured and 131 have been reported missing. [most of 192 missing were in Keelung?]

- Throughout Taiwan, at least 107 people were confirmed to have been killed by the storm as of August 13. [early figure adds to confusion]

- Throughout Taiwan, at least 461 people were confirmed to have been killed by the storm as of August 25, with 192 people missing...

Adding to the confusion, the section titled "Preparations" inexplicably includes Taiwan casualty figures.

Morakot happened three years ago, so casualty figures should be stable now. I suggest updating all casualty figures, and strictly limiting the number of places where those figures are cited (to ease maintenance and reduce the risk of inconsistencies). --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE:

- Replaced multiple, conflicting casualty figures with a final authoritative figure in the "Impact" section: 677 deaths, 4 severely injured, and 22 missing persons, as well as an additional 25 bodies that were not identified: a total of 728 persons (taken from source that cites statistics of the Morakot Post‐Disaster Reconstruction Council up to February 4th,2010)

- Removed casualty figures from sidebars and "Preparation" and "Aftermath" sections. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I don't think anyone has edited the article significantly in several years which is what has caused the confusion.Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a 4 year gap between my comment and my update: not exactly speedy service, but hope it helps. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typhoon Morakot. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2009080200.RJTD
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/GuamStuff/2009080300-ABPW.PGTW
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2009080206.RJTD
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/GuamStuff/2009080300-ABPW.PGTW
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2009080300.RJTD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811021618/http://ph.news.yahoo.com/abs/20090807/tph-kiko-death-toll-rises-to9-8061bf7.html to http://ph.news.yahoo.com/abs/20090807/tph-kiko-death-toll-rises-to9-8061bf7.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sunstar.com.ph/network/landslide-floods-kill-12-rp

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) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Typhoon Morakot. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2009080212.RJTD
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2009080218.RJTD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503184139/http://www.ndppc.nat.gov.tw/ to http://www.ndppc.nat.gov.tw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813121228/http://typhoonmorakot.org/ to http://www.typhoonmorakot.org/

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) 00:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Effects article merger?

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.

---

This article is pretty short, so there's no need for a sub-article for the effects in Taiwan, where 90% of the impacts were. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support – this would flesh out the main article more and possibly help get it to GA status. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages (she/her) 21:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support – As I've said multiple times in the past, we really shouldn't create new content fork articles unless the main article exceeds the readable prose size limit (usually around 170,000 to 200,000 bytes of readable prose), or the size of a particular section grows so large that it creates undue weight in the article. We have neither here. Honestly, people should develop the main article more before even considering these content forks. And as usual, it's best to keep as much information in one place for our readers as possible. Merging the impacts article into the main article for Typhoon Morakot would significantly improve its quality, in addition to consolidating all of the information in one place. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per LightandDark2000. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Suppport Very short indeed, most of the impacts were copied from the article. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 03:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Creator here, this was made early in my wiki-editing when I just found the translating tool, and is not my proudest work. Merge away! I can help with Chinese-language sources. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per nom HurricaneEdgar 12:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per above. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:05, 8 August 2021 (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.