Talk:Typhoon Paka

Typhoon Paka 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 5, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 31, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
March 8, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 8, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
January 21, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
August 17, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Featured article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific / 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 hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Micronesia: Guam / Marshall Islands / Northern Mariana Islands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia 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.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Guam work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Marshall Islands (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Northern Mariana Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Super

Why is "Super" not allowed in the title? Mike H. That's hot 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles of typhoons have no "Super" in their title. HERB 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer the why question at all. Mike H. That's hot 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the title is to include "Super" it should do so throughout all such articles. If you want to make that change you should take up the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Jdorje 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for an argument, I just wanted to know why, which nobody has answered yet. Mike H. That's hot 04:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Mike the word super really should be part of the name because this really was a "super" typhoon. I was there. Jer V. 19:08, 11 August 2006(EST)

Simple answer its not officially an STY.Jason Rees (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

More impact. Jdorje 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shouldn't this be called Typhoon Paka (1997) since the name wasn't retired? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so rare to reuse names in the Central Pacific...I don't see it being a problem. It's not like the Atlantic where it's set to be reused every six years. Mike H. That's hot 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Considering how little there is here, I have reclassified this as stub-class. It needs more anything. --Core des at talk. o_O 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

A lot. Try basing this off Hurricane Ioke. – Ch acor 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

There's still little impact, and virtually no lede. Back to start-class. --Core desat 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): See above b (MoS): See above notes.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Good work on the article. No problems anywhere I can see. The only one there was, I fixed from a discussion on IRC. You may as well update the FTC.^Mitch32^contribs 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winds speeds in [m/s]?

"Paka struck Guam and Rota with winds of 230 km/h (145 mph), [...]"

Shouldn't wind speeds be told in m/s aswell? I.e 63 m/s. m/s is a SI-unit and is the standard unit of wind speeds in Sweden at least. I appreciate input, because it's not just here one is told wind speeds in just km/hand mph. /Tense (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and the Philippines use km/h, so using m/s is just superfluous. Potapych (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but why should the Philippines and Austrailia dictate how the windspeed is listed? Guam, the CNMI and the Marshalls all use US standard measurements. Shouldn't the 145 mph be listed first?Rhodesisland (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's for consistency sake. All typhoon articles have km/h first. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 23

Looks like the IHC folks have been using the ref 23 link for the previous year's IHC action items. This means that ref 23 is no longer a valid reference for this article, since it now refers to the 2009 IHC. 140.90.194.102 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I replaced it with an earlier version on the wayback machine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Typhoon Paka. 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) 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Typhoon Paka. 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) 15:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]