Talk:Tropical Storm Nock-ten

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Nock-ten article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Tropical Storm Nock-ten was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 July 2011.

Wikipedia

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).

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Name

The meaning of the name of the storm is notable. Project standards do not overrule the goal of a comprehensive encyclopedia. Feel free to move the information to a separate etymology section if you like, but it should not simply be removed--especially given that the name is obscure and that it is widely misreported in the media. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the meaning of the name notable? Should the name "Andrew" be explained on the Hurricane Andrew article as being a given name meaning one who is manly and strong? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the meaning notable? This article is about a tropical storm, not the named Nock-ten. It is trivial IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

The name is widely reported as meaning a Laotian bird, or "bird" in Laotian, neither of which is quite accurate. The phrase "nock ten named after laotian bird" gets over 2,000,000 hits at google. The two words nock and ten have meanings in English- the phrase "nock ten" means "the tenth groove" if taken literally. Yes, if the storm were named Andrew, it would be appropriate at least to link to the article on that given name in the article on the storm. Given that no English language article exists to explain the meaning of nok ten, a short explanation is quite reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the name have to do with the storm? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name is not in English, it is often mistaken to be one and is confused with "the tenth groove", as μηδείς claims. I do agree to the fact that Hurricane articles dont explain the name. But the rest, especially the pacific and the Indian storm articles should explain the name. I have seen several articles do so.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the name is not unique to the tropical cyclone. In 50 years, when the name Nock-ten is used 12 times, would its meaning really be in each one? I think a link to tropical cyclone naming or something would suffice when the MH gets to the portion "naming it Nock-ten". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Hurricanehink, then edit those articles as well to add the explanation of the name.

It is simply absurd to say that the name of the storm is not relevant to the article about the storm, or to imply that this information has no place in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Where else should readers look for it? Moving the information to the section of the article which describes when it became a named storm is perfectly reasonable. But there is nor reasonable argument as to why this information which is notable and reliably sourced should be left out of the article entirely. μηδείς (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they can look at in an article for tropical cyclone naming. Nock-ten isn't unique to this storm. It's an arbitary name given to a tropical cyclone. For people who want to know about the origins of the naming and whatnot, we have articles for that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There maybe so many articles covering the name of the storm, but how can we expect every reader to go to those articles to just understand the name!? Not every reader knows what exactly a tropical cyclone is! Not every reader knows how to find things on Wikipedia! There are people who consider themselves lucky to find the right article here! Only a few years ago, when i was not a member here, I didnt know how to look up for things on Wikipedia.... Many still dont! Yeah and BTW, this is the first article for a storm named nock-ten! The name itslef is being used for the second time in the history of the Western Pacific ocean! So it is probable inevitable and we must explain the name here!--Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a storm named Nock-ten in 2004. And as I said earlier, I'd be fine with a link to tropical cyclone naming or something when the article mentions that JMA named the storm. If you link it there, I'm sure people are smart enough to figure out how to find information on naming. Give people some credit. If they want to know the meaning of each western Pacific typhoon, link them, but don't bog down the articles with naming trivia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Link is a yea! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological History

Can Someone please expand the meteorological history like the way its done in Typhoon Ma-on (2011). Thats how a storm article should be like. And also, as the system made three landfalls and maintained tropical storm strength for long., i truly believe the met his section should/must be long enough explaining all that. I can expand anything but met his. So i need help. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled Ma-on article terminated. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

Better distinction needs to be made between the direct effects of the storm and the 2011 Thailand floods which followed. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tropical Storm Nock-ten (2011). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ab/abpw10.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn31.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://dynasmon.fortunecity.com/PAGASA.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ20-RJTD_201107260000.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn31.pgtw..txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]