Talk:1962 Pacific typhoon season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Todo

I know this isn't all of the storms. Jdorje 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes,i am done with the storms.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What does this need for B-Class?HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Over a paragraph for each storm, and a paragraph for impact for any storms that affected land. Use newspaper reports and google to find more info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Does storm include depressions? If so 39, 41, 50, 63, 66 and 68W are done.(Mainly 68W)HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that includes depressions, and those storms you mentioned will need more info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(indent reset):JTWC is down for some odd reason and i cant find stuff at the JMA.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
JMA weren't official for naming storms in 1962, but they may have info on impact, especially for Japanese typhoons. – Chacor 03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I found it- and all they have is tracks not any info.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that should be bolded is the article name and other names for the article (e.g., for Netherlands, "The Netherlands" and "The Kingdom of The Netherlands"). The individual storm names shouldn't be bolded. – Chacor 10:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone come up with track maps? I certainly can't.Mitchazenia V5.0 00:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
B-Class now? I've extended all the known cyclones as possible. There is no other information for those suspect cyclones at the bottom.Mitchazenia-7000+edits 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Still some work to do. It might have the quantity (haven't given it a good look), but not the quality. The other storms section should be removed, given that there is no info. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the intro or season activity. Also, I notice you only use the JTWC reports. That's hardly comprehensive enough to be considered B class. What about all of the other sources out there on the storms in the season? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I was able to today to finally figure out to interpret the best track data from the JMA and gave more info on those-gonna finish the references of it though.Mitchazenia-7000+edits 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awe factor vs. actual strength

I was too young to remember Wanda, but my mom talked about that as a reference whenever typhoon is the topic of discussion. I believe the difference of this storm from others was that it hit close to population and civilization and the damage experienced by the people was more significant than other storms that hit unpopulated areas. For example, you could find photos of huge ferry boat sitting in the middle of a street after that storm. The awe factor blew its significance out of proportion. Kowloonese 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JTWC info!

No such thing as Severe Tropical Storm. All seasons pre-2000 we should be using official JTWC designations AND windspeeds AND pressures. Changes should be made to ensure that the pressures are not those reported by Japan but rather by the JTWC (use the ATCR), and all mentions of STSes in the headers or infoboxes must be removed. – Chacor 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok my error.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay a few more things: Please standardise the infoboxes. The exact JTWC numbers are not needed because these are JTWC names. Formed should be formation of the TD, dissipated should be end of TC (either dissipation or extratropicality) - do not include extratropical stage in the duration, as that's not what we do. – Chacor 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Now i'm confused, I probably wasn't around for this, but why don't we use ACE in the West Pacific, i went to a lot of work making the chart. Like i said, i probably wasn't around for it. Also, i fixed just about everything.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You still need to standardise the infoboxes - formation and dissipation dates. – Chacor 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I just fixed those, anything else? I've also added the JMA designation to the infoboxes, will that matter?Mitchazenia(7900+edits) 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
JMA designation is fine. – Chacor 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You never answered my earlier question.Mitchazenia(7900+edits) 17:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a picture of Vera, but to make a good set, i really need that radar of Wanda. If anyone's wondering, the photo is from the MWR. And i found a bunch of great Harriet damage photos and can i use them? Here's the link: http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/PakPhanang_Chapter2s.pdf

Mitchazenia(7900+edits) 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it didn't get through the first time. In the infobox, only DATE OF TC FORMATION, DATE OF TC END (either XT or D), MAX JTWC WINDS and LOWEST JTWC PRESSURE are needed. No JMA pressures in the infobox, only mention them - if they are significant - in the prose. – Chacor 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all that except for one. Emma's JMA pressure-whih i just did. What's wrong now?Mitchazenia(8000+edits) 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt inches of mercury conversions are needed. hPa or mbar is all that's really needed. Can you PLEASE fix the MANY mistakes you have in the article? Just one example is the misspelling of "Kuril Islands" to "Kurin Islands" under Joan. "FORMED" does not need the year, only "DISSIPATED". For TD66, use JTWC info for infobox. JMA can be mentioned in prose. Why do some infoboxes have no km/h conversion, while some do!? Standardise it. Sarah's infobox also needs fixing. – Chacor 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier if you'd calm down. First of all, i don't know how to convert mph-km/h. Second, thanks for finding my island problem. Three, how can i use a JTWC info if JTWC found it only as a depression and the JMA saw it as a storm?Mitchazenia(8000+edits) 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In 1962, JTWC info > JMA. Use only the official info in the infobox. I already said that you can - and should - mention JMA in the PROSE for the storm, but not the infobox. If you can't convert mph to km/h you really shouldn't be writing TC articles. – Chacor 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your lucky, i'm not reporting that. To me that's an insult, i'm only 15 1/2, what do you expect? Otherwise i am done with everything.Mitchazenia(8000+edits) 16:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How is that an insult? It's a true statement. If one can't do metric conversions then they shouldn't be writing TC articles. Age doesn't matter. Chacor, myself, and many others believe that all users should be able to conform to our quality standards, regardless of age. One would expect that a Wikipedia user should be able to write, given that is the most important part about writing an encyclopedia. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget it. I made a conversion chart to keep reminding me. Otherwise, the inboxes should be complete now.Mitchazenia(8200+edits) 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Use NOAA's Wind Speed Converter script. It's much easier. Good kitty 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freda

Was Typhoon Freda 1962 or 1963? It's listed on both pages. Also, I've seen it spelled "Frieda." Any storm historians have the answer?Bobanny 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with this article

At this point, the article is unfinished and contains false information (for instance, the W suffix on storm numbers was not used in 1962). What should we do with it? I think it might be reasonable to at least get rid of all the unnamed systems, because they are all unsourced (except for the fact that they "may have existed). The way the article is now, it could end up at AFD if someone not in the project came along and saw it. --Coredesat 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so, such an AFD as you described will be quickly withdrawn per AFD policy. However you are right, the article needs major work Storm05 13:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(can you please learn how to indent correctly) A successful AFD would be unlikely at this point, as there is a large amount of information (albeit poorly worded). That said, should {{cleanup}} be added to the page? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at this article a few times before, and I highly doubt an AFD is the most appropriate thing to do. {{cleanup}} is too general I think. If there are some false information in the article as well as unsourced material, then {{unreliable}} is probably the best tag to add. RaNdOm26 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)