Talk:Typhoon Xangsane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Typhoon Xangsane appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 October 2006. |
 |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
 |
Typhoon Xangsane has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
- See also: Talk:Typhoon Xangsane (2006)/Archive1
Contents |
[edit] Assessment
Nice work Cordesat. I've left this at B-Class and High Importance for the moment-feel free to change that.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely NOT a High-importance. Lowered to mid-, though, as it's the first storm to impact Manila in 11 years. Still might not even be enough for mid. – Chacor 14:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- 279 deaths is definitely mid-Importance, no matter where it hit (well, except maybe Haiti or Bangladesh). —Cuiviénen 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with Mid. High is reserved for the long-remembered, standard-bearers (except for those flagship articles that reach global proportions and are loaded with subpages that get Top level, which only Katrina is so far). CrazyC83 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- 279 deaths is definitely mid-Importance, no matter where it hit (well, except maybe Haiti or Bangladesh). —Cuiviénen 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Todo
More info. For example, what about the people being stranded in Philippines due to the storm? Surely there's more impact in the Philippines. Another picture, ideally of its second landfall, would be a nice addition. There's a discrepancy with the infobox. It says $681 million in damage, but the source says $629 million, all in Vietnam. Are there any damage figures for the Philippines? According to the seasonal article, there is a preliminary estimate for crop damage, so that should be worked in. A death toll box would be nice to keep things organized. All in all, good job for such a damaging storm in a short period of time. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about Xangsane's impact on southern Laos and Cambodia? QazPlm 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of getting some impact photos from a typhoon chaser on Storm2k. I'll upload them and add them to the article once he agrees to release them under CC or into the public domain. --Coredesat 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Retirement
Do they retire names like this? Basically I would like to know if the (2006) is going to be dropped from the end. Good kitty 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, they retire WPAC names. If they do, it wouldn't be until the WMO meets next April and decides all of the retired names. I personally think it'll be retired. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Probably Bilis, Xangsane, Chanchu and Saomai.Mitchazenia V3.0 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Since there isn't great certainty, the (2006) should stay on them for now IMO. CrazyC83 03:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Because typhoon season runs year-round, they only retire names two years late - some 2004 names were only retired this year, while some 2005 names will go next year. At the earliest we'll only find out in 2008. – Chacor 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, correction to make: we'll know very, very soon. Three 2005 storms were retired in the 2005 meeting in November 2005 (Matsa, Nabi, Longwang), but replacement names will only be known after the 2006 meeting (which ends today). By that reasoning we should know which 2006 names are retired by the end of this meeting. – Chacor 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Name retired[1]. As soon as an admin gets to it this will go to the main article without the year designator. – Chacor 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article
This article meets the requirements for a Good Article. I have reviewed the article, have found it well-referenced and the text looks professional. There is no reason to deny this article GA status any longer. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aftermath
Aftermath reports still flow in on ReliefWeb, so updates are needed:
- http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6VR9QT?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=TC-2006-000144-PHL
- http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6VLJ65?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=TC-2006-000144-PHL
- http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6VB8T3?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=TC-2006-000144-PHL
- http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/LZEG-6VBP4U?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=TC-2006-000144-PHL
Also indirectly related are the Thai floods, for which the Xangsane page on ReliefWeb has almost-daily Thai releases up to mid-Nov. – Chacor 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
