This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
oceans,
seas, and
bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
Aral Sea; check
La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
MS Estonia
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)reply
JMA weren't official for naming storms in 1962, but they may have info on impact, especially for Japanese typhoons. –
Chacor03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. –
Chacor10:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Kowloonese00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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. –
Chacor16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)reply
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. –
Chacor16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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
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. –
Chacor00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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. –
Chacor00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. –
Chacor01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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?
Bobanny18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Coredesat00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
(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)reply
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.
RaNdOm2607:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I've done the general copyedit cleanup (typos, nonparallel tenses, spelling, proper pluralization, etc.) I think it's a good article (except that I can't check the facts). If you think there are factual problems, trying inserting citation needed or similar. If more copyediting is thought needed, contact me on my talk page.
Levalley (
talk)
22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Cyberbot II has detected links on
1962 Pacific typhoon season which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations:
local or
global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may
request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist
locally or
globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the
help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
http://g.co/maps/fgjv2
Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact
User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
I have just modified 4 external links on
1962 Pacific typhoon season. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on
1962 Pacific typhoon season. 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.