Talk:Typhoon Tip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Typhoon Tip article.
Article policies
Good article Typhoon Tip has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Mislinked link?

Cyclone Tracy may not point where it's supposed to. Disambiguation may be in order.

No. Jdorje 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
So the graphic, claiming "Cyclone Tracy" is the smallest cyclone on record, should point to a Category 4 storm? That makes no sense. Sachmet 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems absurd that Cyclone Tracy is the smallest tropical cyclone on record, but read the pictures source (in the Tropical Cyclone Size) section. Size does not mean the same thing as intensity.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your complaint. Yes, Tracy was a Cat 4. Yes, Tracy was tiny. These two concepts are not incompatible. --Golbez 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American bias

I think future edits to this article need to help remove some of the American bias. The hurricane affected Japan but American customary units seem to be perferred (Japan is metric) and there is even a graphic of showing the size of the hurricane compared to the U.S. (with Canada and Mexico chopped off).--Clawed 09:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Most people are familiar with the size of the United States, but not everybody knows how big Japan is. Also, metric units are included for all measurements in the article so that doesn't seem to be a problem. syphonbyte 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

More on impact. Remove american bias (?) (see above). More precision on size (using gale-force winds as the criteria doesn't leave much to compare to). Jdorje 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowest Pressure

The box on the right says "870 mbar (Lowest non-tornadic pressure ever recorded on Earth)", but I'm not aware of any pressures actually recorded in tornadoes. They may well be lower in tornadoes than in hurricanes, but no one knows for sure yet. And even so, they haven't been recorded, so I am removing the sentence.

But ... it's true. It's the lowest non-tornadic pressure. And if we don't know what pressures are in tornadoes, that doesn't change that - it's kind of a disclaimer because it might not be the lowest. --Golbez 11:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment/Importance

Why is Tip mid-importance? Despite its lack of impact, it's the most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded. Surely that's deserving of high-importance? --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only the most intense, but the largest. I agree. This article should be improved drastically; it's a very important topic. -Runningonbrains 21:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to reduce it to stub-class simply because of its lack of organization and content. I'm going to leave it as a very, very low start, since it at least has all the sections. --Coredesat talk. o_O 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've redone it. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I think it's B-class now. --Coredesat 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pic

I hope you like it. The NHC had 2 versions-this one was better. The old one was hideous. Feel free to revert the change.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the image on the first page of this NOAA document usable? It is probably the best image of Tip out there, though I'm not sure what "Photo courtesy of Debi Iacovelli." Debi Iacovelli co-wrote a report on Tip in the same document, and is apparently a tropical weather specialist at Cape Coral, Florida. The image is the same of the one on page 8 of the JTWC report, which says "DMSP satellite imagery of Super Typhoon Tip" (though the one in the JTWC report is smaller and less well-defined). Do you think that image is usable? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There might be a good one of Tip at peak intensity in the AVHRR data, but I'd have to pay a registration fee to be able to use it (or anything earlier than 1986 for that matter). Good kitty 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably not necessary for you to pay the registration fee. That pic in the link I provided looks great, but I'm not sure of the copyright status. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure but it's either NOAA or the U.S Navy's image. --IrfanFaiz 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not. JTWC attributes it to DMSB satellite, though I don't know what that is. If that is a satellite of another country, we can't use it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well there's DMSP (Defense Meteorological Satellite Program) [1]. It could also be the same AVHRR image I was looking at. The GMS satellites weren't operating back then, but the AVHRRs were fairly new. Good kitty 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So you think it's good? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So it's NOAA's image then? --IrfanFaiz 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most intense

[2] It says Yuri (Nov, 1991), Gay (Nov, 1992) and Angela (Nov, 1995) may have been more intense than Tip. I'm sure its still the largest. That one picture over the United States is amazing. Good kitty 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for posting on this old one but... those are Dvorak estimates and Tip's intensity were recorded on site. So maybe Tip is still the most intense tropical cyclone. --IrfanFaiz 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Tip may not have been retired and there were other storms of the same name. However, it is not currently on any naming list. More to the point this Tip is the Tip - by orders of magnitude the most important in both meteorological terms and human impact. Typhoon Tip redirects here and 99.999% of people looking for "Typhoon Tip" will be after this storm. This is a case where common sense (and broader WP guidelines on disambiguation) should surely overrule WPTC's "rules". This is the same rationale that placed Hurricane Katrina at the main article before it was retired ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic: "When there is a well known primary meaning... then that may be used for the title of the main article". This Tip is clearly that and will remain so as there will not be another TY Tip.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, remember that the WPTC rules are guidelines, at most, so they can be WP:IAR'd if there is a reason good enough to do so. I'd say this one should be moved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just put chapter and verse down as reference for future cases (where there may be a need for discussion...)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Typhoon Tip (1979) to Typhoon Tip as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)