Talk:Typhoon Babe (1977)

Typhoon Babe (1977) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

On 4 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Typhoon Babe. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Todo

Content is good. The storm history and impact need to be separated to give the article a little structure. Some grammar also needs fix. Jdorje 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few "shes" in the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The storm track shows Babe of the Atlantic. What's with that!Icelandic Hurricane 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there was a Babe in the Atlantic at the same time, and the Atlantic Babe got its track map first. Hurricanehink 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, when I first decided on the naming format for the track maps I asked Eric if the had ever been 2 storms in the same year with the same name, but I don't think I waited to get an answer. Babe's not the only one...there also the Alices of 1954 (which I called Alice1 and Alice2). Now for my next question...which Babe was first, the Atlantic or Pacific one? — jdorje (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, nevermind about the order. But the question is: are there any other instances of 2 named storms with the same name in the same year? — jdorje (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPAC Babe reached TS status only 24 hours before Atlantic Babe. A quick check on the List of tropical cyclone names used in more than one basin shows these:

Alex (1998)- Atlantic and WPAC
Alice (1953)- Atlantic and WPAC, 2 Alices in Atlantic in 1954
Betty (1972)- Atlantic and WPAC
Carmen (1974)- A and WPAC
Fabian (1985)- A and WPAC
Irma (1978)- A and WPAC
Linda (1997)- EPAC and WPAC

Hurricanehink 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Where does this list come from? Digital Typhoon shows no Alex of 1998 (but does show Alice of 1953). — jdorje (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unisys and JTWC show an Alex in 1998. Hurricanehink 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Babe (1977)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add when Babe became a typhoon in the lead. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should mention that Ryuku is part of Japan because the layman may or may not now that and thus be confused by the first sentence. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Coincidentally, Typhoon Babe and Atlantic Hurricane Babe existed at the same time from September 3–9.[3]" too trivial IMO for lead. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- I feel that this is the most appropriate place since it is a little factoid not related to the actual history of the storm. It doesn't have a place in the Met. Hist. as suggested in my opinion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hours later, a weather reconnaissance mission into the depression revealed winds of 75 km/h (45 mph), prompting the JTWC to designate the system as Tropical Storm Babe. [2] " m space between ref. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"while situated approximately 465 km (290 mi)" 465 is kinda random number so would "approximately" be good here? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- It's fine as is. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Up until September 8, Typh" no need for "Up" IMO. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Coincidentally, Typhoon Babe and Atlantic Hurricane Babe existed at the same time from September 3–9.[3]" stick that lead sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph of the MH somewhere. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- See previous response on this tidbit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link to MWR and NOAA in Ref 3. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Link to AP in ref 7. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Link to UPI in ref 8. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Otherwise, it's very good. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 12:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should meet all the concerns. Thanks for the review YE! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Requester has not given any evidence or reasoning behind why this particular typhoon is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Babe (1977) → Typhoon Babe – There were Typhoons named Babe in also other years. However, 1977 Babe caused the most damage. --126.208.11.200 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The target title is taken, and this primarytopic grab is not clearly justified. And the three RMs should have been done as one to save us a lot of redundant talk. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.