Talk:Typhoon Nuri (2014)

Most Intense?

The lede makes a claim that this was the most intense extratropical cyclone of the North Pacific Ocean, however, the citation it uses is just a weather warning, and I see no such assertion in that bulletin. Haiyan still holds that record from everything I have seen. Is someone here trying to make this something bigger than it is? — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Haiyan did not become an extratropical cyclone so it and Ex-Nuri are not comparable. I will cite a reference for the previous records. -- Meow 09:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Extratropical image

Although the actual animation of Ex-Nuri being used here is good and all, I think it's hard to see and identify the cyclone, so I think that colored high-res image of the extratropical cyclone would be more fitting to the article. ABC paulista (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: This is the final solution: Nuri 2014-11-07 2232Z.png -- Meow 20:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Meow: I still think that the colored image is better, since it gives a more accurate vision of the storm than the other versions, but this image you brought here isn't bad at all. I'm still highly against the animation. ABC paulista (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Be logical

I know the article is important to the United States, but we have to be logical. A bomb cyclone is not a tropical cyclone. Please these American editors do not put “2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone” next to “Typhoon Nuri” again and again. -- Meow 20:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The fate of Nuri

DISSIPATION AT NOV0712UTC=

The Japan Meteorological Agency analysed that former Typhoon Nuri (1420) dissipated at 12:00 UTC on 7 November 2014. Their decision looks unbelievable; however, the system split into two centres at 00:00 UTC, and the new centre absorbed the former one at 12:00 UTC.

I cannot judge the fate of Nuri by myself, so I want to gather more people’s opinions. There are questions we have to think about:

• Did the system dissipate on 7 November 2014, or 13 November 2014?
• Should the article of Typhoon Nuri (2014) split into two articles again?

-- Meow 13:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For the time being we have to say that the system dissipated on November 7, however, that doesnt mean that we can not note some of the stuff on the other extratropical cyclone within this article imo.Jason Rees (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Split: Now that JMA considers that the tropical cyclone and the extratropical were different systems, it would be misleading for the reader if we keep both in the same article. Both storms have sufficient notability to have their own article, and we can't argue against what's official since it was the main reason for the earlier merger of the articles. Since JMA says that Nuri dissipated on November 7, it dissipated on November 7 and the 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone formed on November 7 and dissipated on November 13.

And the same should be done with the storm path. ABC paulista (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's split, then Nuri should be merged. Sure, it was strong, but Nuri wasn't terribly notable on its own. I'd just refocus it on the extratropical storm and reticle the article. Nuri's origins and MH should be condensed and put in the PTS, but still here in some form due to the connection with the bomb cyclone. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support split along with Hink's suggestion of merging Nuri's article into the 2014 PTS. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can resurrect the 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone's article, add more info in there about Nuri. But I don't see why Nuri's article shoud cease to exist, since it was made before Nuri's ET and in that time the typhoon itself was deemed noteworthy enough to have it's own article. ABC paulista (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But is Nuri alone worthy right now? It seems silly to have two separate articles. The important one was the extratropical storm becoming the strongest. Not Nuri, which was a run of the mill powerful typhoon that did little on its own. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, Nuri's article was created on November 5, two days before Nuri's ET and Bombogenesis. So, if back then Nuri alone was considered noteworthy enough to have it's own article, I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy now, with more info than back then. And, if we look carefully, this article has more info about the typhoon than the bomb. ABC paulista (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's just my point though. There is too much on the typhoon, and when the article was created, not much time passed to give it a proper assessment before the article became more about the epic extratropical storm. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Split but not merge: Nuri was the second strongest storm in 2014, and it caused some conflicts between Japan and China. Moreover, the article describes many useful contents about Nuri. I cannot understand why someone always wants to merge typhoon articles, especially the articles which are mainly written by myself. -- Meow 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not the writer that prompts reason to merge, it's that the system lacks notability to warrant its own article. You just happen to be one of the most active editors for the West Pacific so your work is more likely to run into these issues. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose split of non-impact articles - The system definitely survived until November 13; there are other agencies besides the JMA, you know, and they indicate that the system did indeed make it to the Aleutian Islands, persisting until November 13. A bunch of news articles online also indicate this. I really don't see a need for an article split either; it's much, much smaller than the Hurricane Sandy article (and that one's gigantic), and there really isn't all that much info I can imagine being branched off into impact-specific articles for East Asia and North America. The 2014 Being Sea bomb cyclone is basically this storm after its extratropical transition, and unless we can dig up a lot more information on its specific impacts, the articles should remain merged. Anyhow, this article should definitely remain intact, and it should not be dismantled or truncated, as it is obviously very notable, even if most of the notability came from it developing into a bomb cyclone (after becoming extratropical). LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why I didn't learn about this thread until now, considering that I was one of the sole parties involved in one of the discussed articles. In any case, LightandDark, would you please provide the URLs of the pages you are referring to as Meow did with the initial post? Thank you. Dustin (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: if, in this kind of case, we would take unofficial info more account, the articles about Hurricane Ida and Nor'Ida would have been merged since there's a bunch of sources that state that Ida Extratropical Transitioned and became a Nor'easter, thus both being the same system, and for a time even NHC considered them to be the same cyclone. But in post-season analysis, NHC said that the hurricane's LLC dissipated, thus both being different systems, so the articles were kept separated since what NHC says is official. The same was done with Hurricane Juan and 1985 Election day floods. ABC paulista (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Question – Would the Bering Sea cyclone be considered to have been a winter storm, or simply "extratropical cyclone" (I know it was an extratropical cyclone, but was it an ETC or an ETC and winter storm by definitions)? I have an idea for a possible other article for consideration in the future, and this information would be helpful. Dustin (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources should be obvious, after all this time, but here are only a few for starters:

• Bomb Cyclone "Nuri" whips down arctic air into US
• OPC's final bulletin on Nuri's remnant

And by the way, the system would technically be considered to be both a Winter Storm and an extratropical cyclone. Strong Winter Storms are almost always extratropical cyclones, by the way (I cannot recall a single occasion in which this wasn't the case). LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Northwest Pacific typhoon articles in Wikipedia are based on the RSMC Tokyo which is operated by the Japan Meteorological Agency. The RSMC best track data analyses that Nuri dissipated (got absorbed) on 7 November. RSMC is significantly more reliable than OPC, and we cannot rely on CNN so much. -- Meow 11:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with many of your arguments, I must say that I do not understand the basis of "RSMC is significantly more reliable than OPC". This is only a matter of interpretation of information the way I see it, and being "official" does not decrease reliability. If there is a point to be made by Meow, it is "because it is official" rather than "because it is more reliable" (at least, that is how it appears at the moment). Dustin (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are reasons that led the WMO to assign them as the official bodies to analyze and forecast their respective regions, and reliability is one of them. And since all RSMC's reports are supported by WMO, disregard what is said by JMA is the same as disregarding WMO.

So, all RSMC are more reliable than unofficial agencies. They are official, more reliable and even more verifiable, sonce most news and unofficial meteorological agencies use them as sources of data and information. ABC paulista (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What is this, a preference for Japan over the United States? I do not see the validity of the arguments you make. The U.S. has far more actual worldwide information available to it, which is one thing which helps the U.S. over Japan. Maybe Japan has better forecasters at some unspecified point in time than the Ocean Prediction Center, but I don't see how that affects it. Regardless of these points, I would not disregard the information of either, as they are different interpretations of the same thing. No. The OPC was never intended to be official in the WMO, it doesn't prioritize tropical cyclones, and just monitors more general regions. That kind of argument is like saying the JMA is a more reliable source than the JTWC just because it is official, when there is no actual considerable way of backing up such a claim. The JMA is more of a civilian service which is probably among the reasons it was chosen to be the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for tropical cyclones with little regard for else (when it comes to meteorological activity over the ocean well away from Japan, as far as I am aware). I believe that we should follow the split view as the JMA tracked the cyclone before it lost its tropical characteristics, but I do not think we should disregard the Ocean Prediction Center entirely when it comes to encyclopedic material. Dustin (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm a brazilian, I can assure you that I don't care from what country come the agencies. I only care about how much reliable, veifiable and official our info is. Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers aren't only about TCs, but meteorology in general that's why being Meteorological Centers.

I never said to disregard what OPC said, but we have to take in more account what the official RMSCs state, since they are the maximum authorities for their regions, so being more verifiable (since tehy are becked up by WMO). And, in this case I don't know a better way to measure reliability than using officiality and authority. In this case, we should go like we do in TC projects: Use infos from all agencies, but favor the official ones.

I'm not a North American so I do not tend to favor and be biased towards US agencies, unlike most editors here. ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Split but don't merge. PTS articles are long enough as it is. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Split. The RSMC says Nuri dissipated, so they are two different cyclones. Krit-tonkla ^talk 11:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Too many acronyms; consider revising.

To the authors:

What is the intended audience of this entry? What is the purpose of this entry? Is the content designed to attend to the needs of its intended audience and/or its purpose? Does it do so successfully?

Look at what you have compiled from the perspective of a member of your intended audience. Do you intend to alienate laypeople? Do you only want those with prior knowledge and specialized backgrounds to take the time to read what you have written?

If so, this seems less of a Wikipedia entry than it does a scholarly debate.

Please consider wording the information you have presented in a way that most people, not just a specialized set, will find useful.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.26 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Typhoon Nuri (2014) into the 2014 Pacific typhoon season. I think that the impact was not much, but the article with the one with the new center won't be affeced. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Nuri is also remarkable in its own right due to its meteorological history, and the impact on the coral poachers is an unusual and interesting one. The WP:SIZERULE for the season article is well into the range where we would split.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Jasper Deng Eventually, the illegal poachers came back and nothing much happened. Nanchang17 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Honestly, I would rather merge this article with the extratropical storm article now, since it is essentially the same storm, just like Cyclones Judy and Kevin which is two storms but one impact. You won't like it but I think this is the time for WPTC and tropical cyclone editors' attitude to change. MarioJump83 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  @MarioJump83 What do you mean? Nanchang17 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)