Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Gonu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCyclone Gonu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starCyclone Gonu is part of the Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 3, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 25, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
May 15, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

ras tanuraa

[edit]

"In Ras Tanura, the storm is expected to hit with full force, disrupting the oil operations of Saudi Aramco indefinitely. Residents should be advised to go as far inland as possible, or at least stay indoors and away from glass at all times. There has been no word yet as to whether Riyadh is far enough inland."

this isn't accurate, as the storm not going to even come this far west. Aspshortjock 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to remove it. All new additions should be properly sourced. – Chacor 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category 3 or 5?

[edit]

The articles has Gonu listed as reaching a category 3 cyclone. www.wunderground.com has it listed as reaching category 5. Which is correct? http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/na200702.htmlOrichalcon 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to JTWC, it peaked with 1-minute sustained winds of 140 kt, which is Category 5-equivalent, at 1200 UTC on June 4. - SpLoT // 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category 3 is the current status. It has weakened since its peak. —Cuiviénen 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but we haven't put Katrina as a category 2, as it was like that in its final hours!!!??? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is for current information. When the storm is over the final infobox will reflect peak status. – Chacor 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once it dissipates, GA?

[edit]

This article has a wealth of knowledge, which is a pleasant surprise considering where it is expected to make landfall. I could see this becoming a GA rather quickly after dissipation. Thegreatdr 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is impact, which is rather short so far. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Record latitude/longitude?

[edit]

I'm just curious, is this the first time a storm has made it into the Gulf of Oman? Either way, this one is going to be the FARTHEST a storm has made it into the gulf- perhaps that should be included in the article once it's done?

Great Article so far, by the way, whoever wrote it. Would you like to write the Atlantic articles too? :) -Winter123 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jeff Masters' blog, this is the first cyclone to ever enter the Gulf of Oman. bob rulz 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be record latitude, but definitely isn't record longitude. Storms have struck Somalia before. —Cuiviénen 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, check out this basin tracks image. -- RattleMan 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the image already, but storms before 1970 aren't well documented from what I can see, that's why I asked. Thanks. If it makes it into that little bend of the gulf, it will be at the northernmost point in the Indian Ocean, hence record latitude (over water). -Winter123 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the site to Unisys archives. http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/index.html Based on these records, Gonu happens to be the first entering the Gulf of Oman. KyuuA4 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic information

[edit]

http://www.alraialaam.com/06-06-2007/ie5/local.htm#05

Damage image

[edit]

There's a damage pic on the Arabic Wiki, though I'm not sure how easily it would be to transfer. If anyone is interested in trying, here's the link. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User submitted videos, pictures and blog entries

[edit]

There are hundreds of user submitted videos, pictures and blog entries available at http://sadaboutgonu.blogspot.com . If anyone else agrees that this is useful information for wikipedia readers, kindly add it to the entry. Thank you. Stogey 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link fails WP:EL/WP:SPAM imo, but if there's consensus to add then I won't object. Personally against, though. – Chacor 04:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't a wikipedia entry have links to pages that actually show what is happening on the ground in addition to just a satellite image? This is all the article currently has to say about the impact to people in the region: "Strong waves and heavy rainfall flooded streets and some buildings" Is that it? This is worse than mainstream media coverage. Just take a look at pictures on flickr, youtube etc under tag "Gonu" and you may start to realise that the storm was in fact more than just an event to document in a scientific journal (which is not all that wikipedia is meant to be). Whilst it is appreciated that the format of the article is probably designed to be in line with other hurricane entries, surely there should be a human aspect to the article rather than just a scientific view of the whole tragedy. Why are you "personally, against though"? Stogey 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't a wikipedia entry have links to pages that actually show what is happening on the ground in addition to just a satellite image?" If it meets policy, yes. Otherwise, no. Why am I personally against? Because it does not meet Wikipedia's links inclusion policy (11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority). The article is not "designed to be in line with other hurricane entries" - it's designed to meet Wiki policy, which trumps all. "surely there should be a human aspect" - WP:NPOV. And "This is worse than mainstream media coverage" - Wikipedia is not WikiNews. – Chacor 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use videos uploaded to Youtube, provided the user who uploaded the videos have released them into the Public domain. Pictures from Flickr could also be used, but they have to be released into PD or have licensing info by the CC-BY-SA 2.5. -- RattleMan 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews is news to me. Never heard of it, but thank you. I will continue to put a link over there that hopefully readers will find useful. IMO, the quality of this article would be greatly improved if it had photos/videos to go alongside some of the facts, as you normally do in encyclopedia articles. If you or anyone else in this forum agrees, kindly add a few from flickr.com or youtube.com (with owner's permission of course or creative commons licence) to support facts stated in this article. You can also get photos/videos from http://sadaboutgonu.blogspot.com ( a non-profit blog setup by residents to make up for the lack of media coverage on the event ). So, in your opinion, are photos that have not been taken by a member of mainstream press not considered to be from an authoritative source?Stogey 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. A recognised authority here would refer to governmental departments or related organisations - and this refers to blog links (i.e. blogs written by scientists, or ministers, or experts). All photos on Wikipedia have to meet our Wikipedia:Image policy. And likewise any content would have to meet the various policy. Your link doesn't. If the photos on your link have been released into public domain and out of copyright, please upload them manually as an image onto Wikipedia for usage, rather than linking to it. – Chacor 06:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats reasonable. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion. It is no wonder that this site is such a huge success. :) Stogey 06:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thank you for remaining civil through the discussion. Just an FYI, you can indent your replies with a colon at the start of your messages. – Chacor 06:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Civil discussion is the ONLY way. Stogey 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my own pictures

[edit]

There are some pictures which I took with a personal camera. Actually, LOTS of pictures, and I wanna upload them. Would they be acceptable? Currently the article only has satellite photos, and pictures of car-stacks and 5 meter deep mud are more...interesting XD Unflavoured 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really took them, you can upload them either on this Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. I hope you fared well during the storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egads!! Almost a month has passed without me fulfilling my promise! Apologies... (And no I dinnae forget, just am busy). How many pictures would suffice ?! Unflavoured 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can go on and upload a few to Commons if you want; anything you have would definitely help. --Coredesat 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]

This passes all the criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comprehensive
  • Pictures with appropriate tags
  • Neutral and sourced
  • Follow MoS and so forth

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider going for an FA run

[edit]

Consider putting this up for FAC, guys. Gary Padgett has emailed to say this article is "excellent, and extremely informative." Well done. – Chacor 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was a little apprehensive for its GA nomination, as I didn't think there was enough information. The main problem with most current articles is that they tend to get outdated. Before this is nominated, is it timeless enough? Additionally, for a $4 billion storm, is the impact comprehensive enough? Is it a problem we don't have any sources in languages from the countries affected? Lastly, is it a problem there are still some people considered missing? They were missing as of the time we mentioned it in the article, but I didn't see an updated figure through Google or ReliefWeb. Also, what about the issue of 3-min winds vs. 10-min winds? Those are concerns I would have if this was on FAC. However, it is certainly telling that Gary Padgett considered it excellent and extremely informative. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with 3-min v 10-min is settled, just need Nilf to come back or for Tito to fix the infobox template. – Chacor 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That can wait till I figure out what is needed. However, no to an FAC without damage pictures. If Unflavoured uploads some great, otherwise badger the guys with good (All rights reserved) ones on flickr. Unfortunately the free ones are useless..--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Beach 1.JPG today. My net connection is super slow, and this took almost 30 minutes. I have a total of 43 pictures good enough for wiki (the rest are either blurry, or too similar). Will try to upload 5 today, and post the links here. Unflavoured 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC) And Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Commercial Area 02.JPG also Unflavoured 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Garden Street 1.JPG also, will try to upload a few more. Unflavoured 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 5 pix total now.

Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Beach 1.JPG
Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Commercial Area 02.JPG
Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Garden Street 1.JPG
Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Commercial Area 31.JPG
Image:Gonu Damage in Qurum Commercial Area 18.JPG

Will be adding links to above Unflavoured 15:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gulf of Oman

[edit]

I've removed the sentence saying Gonu was the first TC in the region as it is not true. First since 1945 perhaps, but judging by this image its number 4 since 1877.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How certain are you that those points aren't remnant lows? Remnant lows aren't TCs... – Chacor 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patience. Given that neither the lat or long are distinctive by themselves for this region, I will need time to identify them. Bear in mind with old data that is likely that track is terminated when still as a significant cyclone, there is no agency who warned on it until dissipation ;) A weaker statement saying first since 1945 is fine, if we really want it in article.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does this sound like a remnant low?

That's how the Indian colonial government described a "cyclonic storm of moderate or considerable intensity" in 1898. I don't exactly trust the reliability of BT that old, but nonetheless it indicates a hurricane-strength system in the Gulf. The other 2 possibles correspond to a duplicate track to the first (how else do you get two storms following the same route, within 0.2 degrees of each other?), and one in 1890 - too early for me to cross-reference against Indian info.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

[edit]

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. 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) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind speeds and convert

[edit]

Wind speeds and {{convert}} I see that conversion templates have been added and removed a few times already. The problem with these templates is that they have no way of taking into account the fact that the figures for maximum sustained winds and maximum estimated gusts are already rounded to the nearest multiple of five. As a result, when they apply the conversion, they treat it as an exact quantity, which a) gives the appearance of more precision than there actually is, and b) removes accuracy in the measurement. For exact measurements, this is not a problem, and the templates can be used; for pre-rounded quantities (generally wind speeds), the conversion makes them stray from the source material. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But would this apply to distances???? Peter Horn User talk 15:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the source. Maritime distances are often taken from the same sources as sustained winds (meteorological discussions), and they are often also rounded. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to get around the rounding. Example 1,000 nmi (1,852 km; 1,151 mi), 1,000 nmi (1,850 km; 1,150 mi) and 1,000 nmi (1,900 km; 1,200 mi), pick and choose between "|0|", "|sigfig=3|" and "|sigfig=2|" according to the context and need. A number of Wiki users suffer of "Convert template Phobia" because they have not learned to handle them. Peter Horn User talk 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the template round to the nearest 5? That always has been the limitation with the conversions that keeps being raised at FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an issue omly in the case of windspeed. I sugest that you put up a request at Template talk:Convert (New section) along with a reason why. I could do that. Peter Horn User talk 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the knots be hidden as otherwise we will have to add every other measurement under the sun such as m/s when we prefer as a wikiproject just to use Km/h and mph in storm articles. Also some people do get how to use convert templates but prefer not to use them as they take up a lot more room than doing it with a simple &nbsp and googleJason Rees (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "knots" can, and should be, "hidden' - by not mentioning, or including, them at all. One only mentions them when a quoted source mentions them as the primary speed measurement. Example: 285 km/h (180 mph) or 175 mph (280 km/h)/180 mph (290 km/h). Imperial first or metric first is dictated by the source. In the case of climate of Puerto Rico it had to be imperial first. By the way it appears that users who may prefer &nbsp don't bother with google (what is the link??) at all, at all, because I have come across some real conversion lulus, see Template talk:Convert#Some wikipedians don't like conversion templates. Btw km/h, not Km/h, see SI units. Cheers. Peter Horn User talk 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a general Google search such as 127 kts to mph or 127 kts to km/h - Also i meant use the kts but hide it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, template:convert no longer accepts kt as an input for knot (unit), it is now kn. Peter Horn User talk 22:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Convert#Rounding these windspeed conversion to the rearest 5 mph or 5 km/h Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my wanderings I came across Tropical cyclone#Hurricane or typhoon and template:Tropical cyclone classification which incorporates the conversion from knot to mph and km/h. No trace of nearest 5 mph or 5 km/h here or amywhere in tropical cyclone. Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 22:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive always been told that the rounding to five doesn't need to take place in scientific articles like Tropical Cyclone but needs to be used in Storm articles like Gonu.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that the scale itself is defined precisely; however the instruments used to make the actual measurements have an intrinsic error that is handled by rounding. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Cyclone Gonu. 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 10:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Cyclone Gonu. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Cyclone Gonu. 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) 01:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Gonu. 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) 16:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Gonu. 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) 11:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Gonu. 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) 11:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Gonu. 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) 12:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Gonu&oldid=1210121848"