This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cyclone Monica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Cyclone Monica has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm sorry but this barely deserves its own article. Any thoughts? TydeNet 06:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please state your detailed reasons for deletion. Considering the even falls within a number of Wiki categories, to consider deletion seems to be premature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.159.104 ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
This AfD has to be defied. (Sorry. Hope I'm doing the right thing) Cyclone Monica is now Category 5 and threatening Gore Peninsula. -- 199.71.174.100 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How ignorant is that. Why do people bother putting up an AfD if they don't even bother following the actual progress of the cyclone. Monica was a Category 5 and possibly was one of the strongest cyclones in history in the southern hemisphere. It's been downgraded to a storm now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a category 5. Orichalcon 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed the date. Orichalcon 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has nothing really on the dvorak analysis technique. But, my question is: is Monica the only cyclone ever to be put at T8.0 by dvorak analysis? — jdorje ( talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The latest BoM warning gives "gust of up to 220km/h" in the Darwin area, this would be comparable to the intensity of Cyclone Tracy. It seems like Tracy and Monica will be like Hurricanes Camille and Katrina, the later storm being weaker at landfall but far larger. If so thats not a good omen for the inhabitants of Darwin. -- Nilfanion 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes - being in Darwin at the moment the situation was quite frantic throughout the day today, most people have stocked up on food/water/petrol, evacuation shelters opened about an hour and a half ago. I'll try to update the page with details, at least until the power goes out.. -- Baronjonas 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
When can we expect confirmation on this cyclone's lowest Sea-Level Pressure? Who's responsible for making the final decision? Orichalcon 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone clarify (here as well as on the article) whether this cyclone is Category 4 or Category 5? - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a current event but we should do better at writing it as a past event. Wikipedia is not a news source. Terms like "have been evacuated" just aren't good; there is no reason not to say "were evacuated" here. The "current storm information" and "emergency information and assistance" sections will obviously have some current events in them, but preparations and impact sections should for the most part cover things that have already happened so they can just use the past tense. — jdorje ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added the information about Maningrida. Margie 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Some yahoo edited that info and screwed it up: identifying kts as mph, changing the minimum pressure, claiming the airport stopped transmission at the height of the storm rather than 1 1/2 hours later (which was probably due to power failure), misquoting an ABC news article "couple of houses I saw were devastated" into "Maningrida was devastated" (actually damage appears consistent with Cat 1 winds) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1623602.htm ...I had to fix it back. Here is the actual data (should remain there a day or two more before they resume ops) if someone can cut and paste it into the article: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDD65151/IDD65151.95142.shtml
If it should happen again here's the info:
Monica made landfall to the northwest of the community of Maningrida, an Aboriginal community of 2600 people. Maningrida is located just inland in a river estuary. Maningrida Airport observations documented a maximum wind gust of 80kts (148 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 986.4 mbar at 18:31 (0931Z) on April 24th, and stopped reporting at 20:02. There was roof damage to a school serving as a shelter and to several other buildings.
Margie 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi QazPlm. Damage sounded equiv to SSHS Cat 1, although winds of that intensity were not recorded at the airport -- 50kt sust winds (10-min avg, converts to 56kts 1-min avg for US) are short of the 64kts required for SSHS Cat 1 (the highest gust, 80kts, was equiv to Australian Cat 2). Remember also that damage can seem higher if buildings are not built to a hurricane code.
The reporting at the airport stopped 1 1/2 hours after the peak of the storm (check the barometric pressure readings and the wind readings, which both maxed at 6:30pm). This was likely due to power failure, and there were likely no higher readings than the 6:30pm ones, as the storm was moving away from the area. The implications that the weather station "failed," which may not be correct (it may be fine, but may not have power), or that it was at the "height" of the storm, both imply damage that may not have occured, or that the highest winds were not measured and were still to come, which is clearly not the case if you look at the data. Actually the airport station is just fine, as they just started reporting again today, about an hour ago (27/01:00 local time).
All of the changes made exaggerated the intensity or the damage, not the other way around. I never said the word vandalism. I think the main thrust of my comment centered around the importance of being accurate and sticking to known data. Margie 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the exact location of this cyclone? I live in Tampa, Florida, a part of the world which is frequently subjected to minor damage by hurricanes (wind, rain, downed power lines, etc). I want to know exactly where this storm is and where it is headed so I can know what to do. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The JTWC now lists the remnant of Monica as having a fair chance of developing over the Timor Sea in the next 24 hours. Once over water, Monica has a very good chance of redeveloping into at least a cyclone of hurricane intensity. Omni ND 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The low is expected to track southward, so the chance of regeneration is not very high. Darwin forecast it to deepen to 995 hPa only. Momoko
Regeneration is no longer expected. -- Coredesat 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it a wikipedia standard to put all Cyclone wind speeds in mph, given that this article is based around an australian phenomenon, I would think that the speeds would be more appropriate to be given in kmph first followed by mph. Ans e ll 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to note -- the Australian Bureau of Met lists wind speeds in both km/h and knots. Margie 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Could we get a track map into the article for this storm? I myself find it rather difficult to picture the path of the storm completely just through the article WotGoPlunk 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The track map in the article now is from JTWC data and not BoM data, there are differences.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't really need to be Australians, but there is one part of the History section that says "later that day", when its actually the next day (I think the confusion stems from UTC vs. local time). Can somebody please take a look at that and remove the {{
contradict}} template. Second, there is a number in the Impact section in parentheses, "0931Z". I don't know what that is, could somebody clarify? (Somebody fixed that part, good job.) Finally, if anyone sees anything in the present tense, take it out unless it really is happening now!
J. Finkelstein
21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC), updated 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Most of the residents of Northern Territory were evacuated or located in shelters, mainly in Nhulunbuy. The town escaped significant damage because the storm track was well offshore.[11]"
The Northern Territory is an area of some 1500km plus by 500km plus and Monica , for the most part skirted the northern coast. I have changed "Most of the residents of the Northern Territory" to "Residents of some remote communities on the north coast of the Northern Territory"
There remains numerous items in this article that requires updating which I will look at later -- Wabat 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
In this article it says "it [Monica] strengthened and became the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide so far this year.". Well, is it? According to list of notable tropical cyclones its only the second strongest this year. Maybe the article should mention the unofficial estimates, and something like "if unofficial estimates are beleived, Monica was the strongest cyclone so far in 2006". Jamie| C 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Not interested in changing the article, but what is the norm for converting in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Ok, thanks. Gavirulax 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jason Rees ( talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Talking about pressure by JTWC is meaningless, as JTWC just uses a strict wind to pressure scale for all tropical cyclones. Moreover, JTWC switched to a new scale in 2007, making pressure of strong tropical cyclones higher.
Monica formed in 2006 so its lowest pressure is 879hPa by JTWC. If it were born in 2007, its lowest pressure would be 907hPa by JTWC. Could you see the difference? -- Meow 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Monica. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
See discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cyclone Monica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Cyclone Monica has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm sorry but this barely deserves its own article. Any thoughts? TydeNet 06:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please state your detailed reasons for deletion. Considering the even falls within a number of Wiki categories, to consider deletion seems to be premature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.159.104 ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
This AfD has to be defied. (Sorry. Hope I'm doing the right thing) Cyclone Monica is now Category 5 and threatening Gore Peninsula. -- 199.71.174.100 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How ignorant is that. Why do people bother putting up an AfD if they don't even bother following the actual progress of the cyclone. Monica was a Category 5 and possibly was one of the strongest cyclones in history in the southern hemisphere. It's been downgraded to a storm now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a category 5. Orichalcon 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed the date. Orichalcon 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has nothing really on the dvorak analysis technique. But, my question is: is Monica the only cyclone ever to be put at T8.0 by dvorak analysis? — jdorje ( talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The latest BoM warning gives "gust of up to 220km/h" in the Darwin area, this would be comparable to the intensity of Cyclone Tracy. It seems like Tracy and Monica will be like Hurricanes Camille and Katrina, the later storm being weaker at landfall but far larger. If so thats not a good omen for the inhabitants of Darwin. -- Nilfanion 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes - being in Darwin at the moment the situation was quite frantic throughout the day today, most people have stocked up on food/water/petrol, evacuation shelters opened about an hour and a half ago. I'll try to update the page with details, at least until the power goes out.. -- Baronjonas 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
When can we expect confirmation on this cyclone's lowest Sea-Level Pressure? Who's responsible for making the final decision? Orichalcon 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone clarify (here as well as on the article) whether this cyclone is Category 4 or Category 5? - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a current event but we should do better at writing it as a past event. Wikipedia is not a news source. Terms like "have been evacuated" just aren't good; there is no reason not to say "were evacuated" here. The "current storm information" and "emergency information and assistance" sections will obviously have some current events in them, but preparations and impact sections should for the most part cover things that have already happened so they can just use the past tense. — jdorje ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added the information about Maningrida. Margie 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Some yahoo edited that info and screwed it up: identifying kts as mph, changing the minimum pressure, claiming the airport stopped transmission at the height of the storm rather than 1 1/2 hours later (which was probably due to power failure), misquoting an ABC news article "couple of houses I saw were devastated" into "Maningrida was devastated" (actually damage appears consistent with Cat 1 winds) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1623602.htm ...I had to fix it back. Here is the actual data (should remain there a day or two more before they resume ops) if someone can cut and paste it into the article: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDD65151/IDD65151.95142.shtml
If it should happen again here's the info:
Monica made landfall to the northwest of the community of Maningrida, an Aboriginal community of 2600 people. Maningrida is located just inland in a river estuary. Maningrida Airport observations documented a maximum wind gust of 80kts (148 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 986.4 mbar at 18:31 (0931Z) on April 24th, and stopped reporting at 20:02. There was roof damage to a school serving as a shelter and to several other buildings.
Margie 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi QazPlm. Damage sounded equiv to SSHS Cat 1, although winds of that intensity were not recorded at the airport -- 50kt sust winds (10-min avg, converts to 56kts 1-min avg for US) are short of the 64kts required for SSHS Cat 1 (the highest gust, 80kts, was equiv to Australian Cat 2). Remember also that damage can seem higher if buildings are not built to a hurricane code.
The reporting at the airport stopped 1 1/2 hours after the peak of the storm (check the barometric pressure readings and the wind readings, which both maxed at 6:30pm). This was likely due to power failure, and there were likely no higher readings than the 6:30pm ones, as the storm was moving away from the area. The implications that the weather station "failed," which may not be correct (it may be fine, but may not have power), or that it was at the "height" of the storm, both imply damage that may not have occured, or that the highest winds were not measured and were still to come, which is clearly not the case if you look at the data. Actually the airport station is just fine, as they just started reporting again today, about an hour ago (27/01:00 local time).
All of the changes made exaggerated the intensity or the damage, not the other way around. I never said the word vandalism. I think the main thrust of my comment centered around the importance of being accurate and sticking to known data. Margie 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the exact location of this cyclone? I live in Tampa, Florida, a part of the world which is frequently subjected to minor damage by hurricanes (wind, rain, downed power lines, etc). I want to know exactly where this storm is and where it is headed so I can know what to do. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Later!!! 70.124.132.176 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The JTWC now lists the remnant of Monica as having a fair chance of developing over the Timor Sea in the next 24 hours. Once over water, Monica has a very good chance of redeveloping into at least a cyclone of hurricane intensity. Omni ND 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The low is expected to track southward, so the chance of regeneration is not very high. Darwin forecast it to deepen to 995 hPa only. Momoko
Regeneration is no longer expected. -- Coredesat 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it a wikipedia standard to put all Cyclone wind speeds in mph, given that this article is based around an australian phenomenon, I would think that the speeds would be more appropriate to be given in kmph first followed by mph. Ans e ll 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to note -- the Australian Bureau of Met lists wind speeds in both km/h and knots. Margie 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Could we get a track map into the article for this storm? I myself find it rather difficult to picture the path of the storm completely just through the article WotGoPlunk 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The track map in the article now is from JTWC data and not BoM data, there are differences.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't really need to be Australians, but there is one part of the History section that says "later that day", when its actually the next day (I think the confusion stems from UTC vs. local time). Can somebody please take a look at that and remove the {{
contradict}} template. Second, there is a number in the Impact section in parentheses, "0931Z". I don't know what that is, could somebody clarify? (Somebody fixed that part, good job.) Finally, if anyone sees anything in the present tense, take it out unless it really is happening now!
J. Finkelstein
21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC), updated 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Most of the residents of Northern Territory were evacuated or located in shelters, mainly in Nhulunbuy. The town escaped significant damage because the storm track was well offshore.[11]"
The Northern Territory is an area of some 1500km plus by 500km plus and Monica , for the most part skirted the northern coast. I have changed "Most of the residents of the Northern Territory" to "Residents of some remote communities on the north coast of the Northern Territory"
There remains numerous items in this article that requires updating which I will look at later -- Wabat 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
In this article it says "it [Monica] strengthened and became the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide so far this year.". Well, is it? According to list of notable tropical cyclones its only the second strongest this year. Maybe the article should mention the unofficial estimates, and something like "if unofficial estimates are beleived, Monica was the strongest cyclone so far in 2006". Jamie| C 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Not interested in changing the article, but what is the norm for converting in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Ok, thanks. Gavirulax 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jason Rees ( talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Talking about pressure by JTWC is meaningless, as JTWC just uses a strict wind to pressure scale for all tropical cyclones. Moreover, JTWC switched to a new scale in 2007, making pressure of strong tropical cyclones higher.
Monica formed in 2006 so its lowest pressure is 879hPa by JTWC. If it were born in 2007, its lowest pressure would be 907hPa by JTWC. Could you see the difference? -- Meow 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Monica. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
See discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)