Talk:Typhoon Nepartak

Disputed text

@Meow: Concerning this: What you wrote makes no sense. This sentence is too clunky for me to infer something meaningful from it. If you are claiming that it is the strongest first named storm of a given season on record, then you need a source for it and you need to clearly and unambiguously state that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The source provides enough information. I cannot understand why you cannot understand at all. -- Meow 05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Meow: What source? (also, please stop edit warring) @Cyclonebiskit: Is this credibly true? If so we can add it to the meteorological history.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon List of No. 01 Storms. The database is based on the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the page clearly explains why Nepartak is both the strongest and the second-latest forming of the first named storms. -- Meow 05:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jasper Deng: Meow is citing Digital Typhoon's list of first named storms, which does verify the claim. However, the record is so arbitrary and irrelevant that it's not worth mentioning at all in my opinion. It's just happenstance with naming practices given data limitation (i.e. 01W could have had gale-force winds offshore, but we'll never know) rather than something meteorologically significant. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Why I uploaded two versions

I have to write an explanation. The two pictures of Nepartak from Rapid Response - LANCE Gallery are damaged with noises, especially on the eye. For this important typhoon, that is why I needed to upload other versions from EOSDIS Worldview. -- Meow 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Super Typhoon

Why is the media calling it a "Super" Typhoon and what is that?

Anthony Sagliani, a tropical meteorologist at Earth Networks in Maryland, tells TIME that Nepartak was an almost textbook supertyphoon. “We as meteorologists have called Nepartak ‘perfect’ because, really, it is from a visual standpoint,” he said.

-- GreenC 20:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: "Super typhoon" is a term used by China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the US-based Joint Typhoon Warning Center to describe high-end Category 4 or 5 (Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale) equivalent storms. However, it's not used by the official warning center for the basin, the Japan Meteorological Agency, so we don't actively incorporate it into articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We use severe typhoon (強烈颱風) over Taiwan in Chinese. However, the English scale completely follows the JMA so Nepartak is still simply called a typhoon. -- Meow 06:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture

@Meow: I've restored the pinhole eye image since you and I both know that the real peak intensity was attained in that picture. "Approaching Taiwan" does not take precedence over this per WP:WPTC/S#Infobox.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If I say I don't know? -- Meow 18:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorporating the buoy observation into the infobox

Would anyone support the idea of including the Taiwanese buoy's 897 mb measurement as a post-pressure comment in the infobox?--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

At present it has yet to be verified so it's only really worth a brief mention in the met history. A note against including it as the minimum pressure might be necessary to stop all the edit warring though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. Buoys are not the RSMC, or even an agency. The only thing we do is wait for its BT from the JMA (ranging from 895-910 hPa). Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Doesn't mean we can't note that it's disputed, such as: "900 hPa (mbar); 26.58 inHg (Disputed; surface observation of 897 hPa recorded)". Also, JMA is very unlikely to change their estimate from 900 (it sucks, right? But they only seem to use surface data when it's from a Japanese station, such as for Dujuan of last year).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: @Cyclonebiskit: Hey can you guys request to semi-protect the article? (Possibly even the 2016 PTS article as well). I am already sick of anon users changing it to 897 hPa, since I had reverted the same edit 5 times, and one just recently before this message. According to the article's history, it's not just 1 user, it's a VARIETY of users who keep changing the same thing. D:< Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Let's first see how the HTML comment does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as you said (and a lot said), it all started with the JMA! I really did expect Nepartak to reach a pressure of 890 or 895 hPa (which it did look like)... but somehow they just maintained it to 900 hPa. :( Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: We all know that JMA's intensity estimate is way too conservative (at peak I would estimate it at about 165-170 kt 1-minute with an 880 hPa pressure, before the eyewall replacement cycle). This is off-topic though, per WP:NOTAFORUM.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)