Talk:Typhoon Yunya (1991)

Typhoon Yunya (1991) 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.
Review: April 29, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merger

Why does this article exist? Is there something extremely notable about this system I didn't see? Hurricanehink 20:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is extraordinarily notable in conjunction with the eruption of Pinatubo. Although not really notable on its own, the amount of data in the article is enough to justify keeping it. (Personally I find it extremely strange that the largest volcanic eruption of the last 90 years coincided with a major tropical cyclone...but I suppose in the Philippines it's not so unusual.) Jdorje 07:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I won't argue that the quality of the article is quite low...but I believe it should be kept around and eventually improved. Jdorje 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that it doesn't deserve its own article. I would be more than happy to include it in the 1991 Pacific typhoon season article, but most is taken straight from the JTWC report on the system. Every single hurricane or typhoon that has some quirk about it doesn't need an article about it. That is why I am doing the seasonal articles with the Notable storms section. Hurricanehink 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is longer than a seasonal summary should be, thus merging it in would lose some writing. That is why I'm against it. Having extra articles doesn't hurt, if that article actually says something. Jdorje 20:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that most could be kept for a seasonal summary section. Considering that most of the information was taken word for word from the JTWC report (bordering on plagerism), some of the techincal stuff can be removed. For example,

At 130000Z, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued its very first warning on Yunya, with winds of 45 knots. This could easily be reworded to, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Yunya on June 13. Much of the article has redundancies that could be removed for a not only better article but short enough for a seasonal article. I just feel it would be more organized to have it in the seasonal article when it is made (which will be soon). Sometimes extra articles does hurt, when what is written could easily be written elsewhere where more people would see it as a more concise section. Hurricanehink 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can merge it in without losing any useful data, I have no objections. At the same time I think the season article would be better if it just had a couple sentences about the storm, with the rest of the data going into the storm article. Jdorje 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree to keeping every article and expanding. However, few WPAC articles exist, so only the extremely notable ones deserve an article (Tip comes to mind). Others without significant reason justifying an article might not deserve it (like this one, I don't consider a coincidence a significant reason personally). If it is all right, I will go forth with the merge, but only get rid of the redundancies or otherwise out of date information (mention of TCFA when best track called it a depression). Hurricanehink 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just coincidence - the typhoon made the damage from the eruption incredibly worse, because instead of most of it blowing out to sea all the ash was swirled around and covered the island of Luzon. Several US military bases which would not normally have been in danger were evacuated and destroyed...it was "raining ash" for several days...etc. Jdorje 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it doesn't go into full detail of the destruction in the article. Every storm doesn't need its own article, and I still don't consider this notable enough for its own article. If you would like to see it, I put what I propose in the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 15:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add that picture to the main article and re-merge it. This storm isn't notable enough to warant its own article but the fact about it's impeccibly terrible timing is quite notable. The picture would add much value to the main article. My compliments to Storm05 for finding and uploading it. It now resides in my personal archive as well. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't get it, but why is that picture so good? Yeah it's a lot better than what's on the season page (which is, of course, nothing). — jdorje (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's compared to all the other pics I've found of Yunya, none of which are very good. I didn't really expect to find one that impressive. It gives a close-up view of the storm at peak intensity and the resolution is pretty good for pictures from the early '90's. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This storm isn't notable on its own. --Coredesat 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with absolutely no loss of info - says just how much this was copied from JTWC and/or main season article. – Ch acor 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

more impact , storm path , damage pics and some kind of structure to this article. Storm05 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the original merge discussion not apply anymore? — jdorje (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through that original merge discussion - I think it is a valid debate which wasn't closed as keep, I'm not sure which way I'd favor. If it is to stay those things need to be done.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

~~Pyroclastic Flows of the June 15, 1991, Climactic Eruption of Mount Pinatubo~~
The 1991 Lahars of Southwestern Mount Pinatubo and Evolution of the Lahar-Dammed Mapanuepe Lake
~~Volume Estimation of Tephra-Fall Deposits from the June 15, 1991, Eruption of Mount Pinatubo by Theoretical and Geological Methods~~
Building Damage Caused by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption of June 15, 1991
Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (Book) – 250 to 300 deaths related to Yunya
~~Atmospheric effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption~~ – At least 300 deaths related to Yunya
~~Monitoring the evolution of the Pasig–Potrero alluvial fan, Pinatubo Volcano, using a decade of remote sensing data~~ – "Perhaps significantly, the proximity of Typhoon Yunya and its associated heavy rainfall at the time of the climactic eruption (Oswalt et al., 1996) established the initial drainage channels that were enlarged and developed by later typhoon-induced surface runoff..."

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking what doesn't appear useful (and yes, I'm using this is a guide even if it's seven years old) as I begin to work on this article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more to be struck; given I'm separate article exists, I'm keeping some of this stuff minimal. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any impacts in Taiwan? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK no and given how weak it was then it isn't a surprise. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Yunya (1991)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Probably worth adding the lahar-related deaths.

- Sure. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Similar comment re Diding — Any information on its naming, and how about adding to body of article?
- Yea this is the exact same situation as before. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a strong tropical cyclone that weakened before impacting the Philippines — Winds itself in a bit of a circle. Is it really first-sentence worthy?
- I'll just simplify that down and remove the weakening bit. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

On June 11, 1991, — You read my mind on that one.
- Kek. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Upper Tropospheric Trough — Why the caps?
- Probably because the article was capitalized at some point and I never got out of the habit of lowercasing it. Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USNS Spica — This thing?
- Linked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although already a tropical storm, the JTWC — First the JTWC struck Hainan, and now it's a tropical storm? Mind you, that might explain how it was able to strike Hainan...
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

destroyed bridges Santa Fe — in Santa Fe? Anything to link to for Santa Fe?
- Fixed and added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
prompting concern from residents — Any more details?
- No and kinda tempted to remove it altogether. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
carried ash within 160 km (100 mi) away from Pinatubo, — within/away sounds contradictory.
- Removed the latter. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the lahars, ... As a result of the lahars, — Repetition.
- Changed the second. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, so two bus-terminal rooves collapsed?
- Yes. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding from laharsh — lahars?
- Ugh, I was going too fast :P Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Yellow Evan, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, Yellow Evan. Passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]