Talk:Cyclone Vance

Australia: Western Australia C‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Cyclone Vance is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Todo

Generally, it's pretty good. One thing, though. A source is needed for the $100 million (1999 USD) total. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our current, more stringent grading criteria, I'm lowering it to start class. More ANYTHING would be good. – Ch acor 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totaled AU 100,000,000 (1999 USD). That doesn't look right; 100M AUD does not convert to 2000 USD. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxygt

Nice article, not too sure why TC Vance has been rated at Cat4, there is no doubt it was a Cat5, wind estimates are signifacntly lower than actual. Commonwealth Bureau Of Meteorology also notes TC strength maintained for well over 24 hours after coastal crossing - will add refs. Hoxygt 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it's definitely a Cat 5 storm. I'll try to change it in the article. RaNdOm26 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale heading as noted in - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir-Simpson_Hurricane_Scale this rating scale only applies to systems in the Western Hemisphere. I will note in body of article that Vance met requirements of SSHS rating of 5 as it had wind gusts >280kph 'estimated' central pressure at peak of 910hPa with an estimated storm surge of "over 5m". (http://www.bom.gov.au/info/cyclone/vance/vance.pdf) Hoxygt 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT remove it from the infobox. The infobox should have the SSHS equivalent as analysed by either the JTWC, or a conversion of 10-minute BOM winds. – Ch acor 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok MY mistake as you can see I'm a mere beginner. It seems I was also incorrect to note that Vance made SSHS Cat5 status since its mean winds were too low. Out of interest why do all Tropical Cyclone systems on Wikipedia receive a SSHS equivalence rating? Is there history I could read on this? Or is it simply an attempt to provide an across the board rating system? Hoxygt 10:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SSHS category is there so that the cyclone can be compared with hurricanes in the USA/Caribbean using the same category system. RaNdOm26 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, SSHS is just in here to provide a global equivalence.--Nilf anion (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Vance. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629233317/http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/1999/summ9903.txt to http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/1999/summ9903.txt

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) 08:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]