This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Typhoon Nuri (2014) 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 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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:
-- Meow 13:49, 26 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Typhoon Nuri (2014) 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 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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:
-- Meow 13:49, 26 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)
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)
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)
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)