Talk:Typhoon Haiyan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What's a super typhoon? Is it a formally recognised term?[edit]

The lead says this is "fifth super typhoon" of the season. The term is sourced in the article to an example of somebody else's seemingly rather informal usage seven years ago. I'm always cautious about using terms with "super" in them. They're often over-hyped journalistic nonsense. Love to see a source to the WMO or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just being lazy with the reference about what it is. I'll source it to NOAA at some point. Either way, a "super typhoon" is a category used by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center to classify typhoons with winds of 150mph or higher. They use the term in their warnings so it's not a hyped thing at all, unlike what happened with Sandy. However, the context of it quickly becomes lost in the world of media... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Good. I still wish they wouldn't use the word "super". It's not very scientific on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been used by Joint Typhoon Warning Center since 1969 at least, so although it may not be scientific, it's certainly historical. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why "super" sounds unscientific. Despite its superficial (pun intended) connection to superman and superwoman, the prefix is used in lots of scientific contexts like "Supernova" and "Superconductivity". I'm fine with it. --Ahyangyi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is when the media pick up and run with something completely unscientific like "Superstorm Sandy", and mislead the public into thinking it has some specific meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been a problem so far with the article. Media can think whatever they want with misinterpreting "super typhoon", so long as it doesn't get fed into the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that this article is fine. The discussion above convinced me that the prefix super- does have a meaning in connection with typhoons. I was simply responding to Ahyangyi's post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wording question[edit]

I see the words 'packing wind speed of' - I don't know for sure but I guess 'packing' is not a technical term, but I'm not certain, so I've not removed it, it seems like this ought to say 'with a wind speed of' EdwardLane (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Storm surge[edit]

There appears to have been a huge storm surge in Tacloban. Tacloban airport is devastated. There were waves and storm sure up to the height of the second story. Death toll is climbing. Currently estimates are about 1000 in Tacloban and 200 in Samar. Clearly these estimates are conservative, and very initial estimates. The final figures will be much higher.

There is no power throughout Leyte and Samar. Local officials are saying that it may be a month before power is resumed. The mobile phones started working in Samar about 8PM on the Saturday night. The storm surge is not uniform everywhere. There was no significant storm surge at Catbalogan. Residents are being told to keep an eye on the sea levels. Sources, CNN, BBC, local contacts.

Thepigdog (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I originally read that the storm surge was 3 meters (10 feet) in Tacloban, but now I cant find a satisfactory reference. I found the prediction of 5.2 meters, which referenced the NOAH site. Also there are sites estimating huge waves but video footage shows the storm surge as quite calm. So it is difficult to get a clear picture of what happened. Hopefully a clearer picture will emerge.

Thepigdog (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I remind people of the severe destruction in Tacloban city. This is a real place, with real people. I have been there. My understanding is that poor squatter areas in low lying areas of Tacloban city have been completely washed away. I expect the death toll in the Philippines to be 20,000 people. And we may never know how many people are just washed away, unknown, never recorded. But we must wait until the media says anything before we can document what we know happened. The media is biased, not by intent but by the need to make money for private companies. The media has already lost interest in Haiyan and the story is only starting to emerge, Everyone knows about Cyclone Katrina, but that may turn out to be a picnic compared with Haiyan. We know the media is only interested in sensationalism and making money. Yet the wiki rules only allow us to document what happened, if vested interests document it first. There is a lack of courage here. If people write what is not true, aren't there people available to correct and review it? Is this really what we want the Wikipedia to be? I think there is spirit in the wiki that is better than that. We all want the truth recorded in the Wikipedia, but I believe that the best way to achieve this is through open debate, without fixed rules. It used to be that if you wanted to know about the truth of something just assert the opposite on a wiki, and wait for the corrections. Of course references are good, but they should not be mandatory.

Thepigdog (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily not moved. In light of the horrific tragedy, this is an obvious primary topic, which may not yet have been obvious when the move request was filed. Clearly there will be no further Haiyans, rendering proposer's argument moot. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon HaiyanTyphoon Haiyan (2013) – Like all other storms with main articles or articles, they have titles ending with a year. I noticed that our title is Typhoon Haiyan not Typhoon Haiyan 2013. We need to rename this with a year with an end or leave it like this until November 13. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? This is clearly the most notable Typhoon Haiyan. The one in 2001 caused minor damage, and the one in 2007 didn't even affect land. This Haiyan is far and above the most notable of the name, and with the potential to be among the costliest and deadliest Philippine typhoons, I think its status as most notable Haiyan is well-assured. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's very likely Haiyan as well as Yolanda will be retired. The other storms named Haiyan are insignificant compared to this. --IrfanFaiz 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per WP:UCN. We have a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page if someone is looking for a different Typhoon Haiyan. Compare, for example, with Hurricane Katrina. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per VQuakr. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per the reasons given above. Yes, official information regarding whether this storm has its name retired or not may not have been released, but it's quite likely that it will happen. And this Haiyan is so much more significant compared to the other storms bearing its name. Even the impacts and intensity of this storm are somewhat unprecedented for recent times. For example, Hurricane Sandy (2013) doesn't have the year in its title because of its notability, regardless of other storms bearing the same name. Likewise, I believe that this storm's article title remains the same, unless circumstances demand otherwise. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


This articles needs some. It is sadly underdeveloped compared to, say, hurricanes Katrina or sandy at this stage. The Philippine Red Cross is estimating 1,200 dead.[1] "National Risk Reduction and Management Council said more tha sn 70,000 families were affected, and nearly 350,000 people were displaced..." Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Our systemic bias guarantees that, despite its severity, this storm won't receive as much attention from the bulk of our editors as storms impacting the USA. But give it time. There's enough editors here with a global view of things to eventually make this the great article it deserves to be. And do remember that we have no deadlines. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fatalities in infobox[edit]

I'm not sure whether the first infobox should be present or the "current" template takes precedence. But shouldn't there be a clear indication of how many fatalities have occurred in the infobox? 8ty3hree (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Once the storm dissipates, the normal infobox will replace it and have the fatalities listed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC) It appears that the death toll is approaching 1800. Maybe it would be a good idea to use figures for the death toll so far. The need for wild speculation of numbers like 10,000 has gone, and the article should now be in the business of fact and news rather than guessing. Crysta1c1ear (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC

We are trying to and generally keeping to the deaths as reported by the NDRRMC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hurricanes and Typhoons[edit]

Aren't hurricanes and typhoons the same thing? I think this could also be called Hurricane Haiyan. 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N92413 (talkcontribs)

Yes they are the same thing and this article could be called Hurricane Haiyan, but its most commonly known as Typhoon Haiyan.Jason Rees (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Read this at the Cyclone Wikipedia article: "In the Atlantic basin, a tropical cyclone is generally referred to as a hurricane (from the name of the ancient Central American deity of wind, Huracan), a cyclone in the Indian Ocean and parts of the Pacific, and a typhoon in the Northwest Pacific region."--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 15:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that even North American media uses typhoon when discussing this storm so its unlikey that this stotm is best known as Hurricane Haiyan anywhere.-- (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

195MPH winds unofficial?[edit]

Right now there are references that state the storm did have winds of 195MPH the question though is has this been confirmed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Those winds are based on satellite estimates and will likely never be confirmed due to a lack of measurements. That said, this comes from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center which is not the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for the Western Pacific so the estimates are technically unofficial to begin with. The Japan Meteorological Agency is the official agency for the basin so their winds, albeit estimates as well, are considered official for the basin. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
So if it is misleading the info should not be in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It was never misleading. He just said it wasn't official and may never be confirmed. Unless.. the US navy and the JMA can afford flying to the typhoon with hurricane hunter aircraft. If that ever happens, it is confirmed, but we'll never know about Haiyan or any other typhoons' winds before the time that happens, because most estimates are satellite estimates. ItsPaide (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The confusion comes from JTWC's use of 1-minute winds vs. JMA and PAGASA's use of 10-min sustained wind speeds (the latter of which would place the storm as a category four at peak strength. JMA says it was the strongest storm they have ever tracked)[2]. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


How would the storm pass over the north of Taiwan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metastasis d (talkcontribs) 00:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Intense tropical cyclones tend to produce large waves that can affect areas as far as 1,000 miles away from their center. It's a regular occurrence for Taiwan to be impacted by waves from a typhoon over the Philippines. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The original paragraph stated that the hurricane passed over the north, but it has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metastasis d (talkcontribs) 03:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Still lots of pending increases in death toll yet to be reported[edit]

"Officials had yet to make contact with Guiuan, a town of 40,000 that was first hit by the typhoon. Baco, a city of 35,000 people in Oriental Mindoro province, was 80 percent under water, the U.N. said."[3]

Also, please see [4] showing massive destruction and widespread dead bodies in cities supposedly outside of even the 40 MPH wind range. There are dozens of 25,000+ cities inside that band, on the coast where the 20 foot storm surge and flash floods hit simultaneously. I think we should at least put in some wording in that there is likely a much larger death toll than can possibly be reported at present. (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No crystal balling, please. I'm sure there will be reliable sources very quickly after information becomes available.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If you trust the media enough then the Philippine Government via the NDRMMC, are about to report a big jump to 1774 deaths from 255.Jason Rees (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In which case, the total is at least 1,795 in all affected regions (including 13 in Vietnam and 8 in Taiwan). Somebody needs to do updating in the interwikis too, as soon as the official NDRMMC counts are published. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for casualities and damages[edit]

I think it would be better if someone will create an infobox tabulating all the casualties from all the countries. Same goes with the table for the damages. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 15:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about that earlier, but I'm not sure.. ItsPaide (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Lets wait and see the impact come in from China etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like this. Note in the table that there is a tabulation per province too since most of the countries use this political subdivision (Taiwan use county).--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 16:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
According to Jeffrey Masters, the "official" death toll is 1,774[5]. I have used the most conservative up-to-date estimate in the Main Infobox, which should be left up there unless there are actually two different Philippine agencies responsible for counting the casualty toll. The Associated Press reports "officially" 942 dead in the Philippines, so I have given the total as 963+, but have not changed the infobox in the body text. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The official tallies on loss of life and damage come from the NDRRMC, which releases situation reports roughly every 12 hours at the start of major disasters and later once per day. I've been very stingy with waiting on their reports since with any major disaster, things get misheard and misrepresented by the media. Their latest 'official tally was 255 fatalities. A new report is coming out in the next few hours and it's expected to have a major increase in fatalities, however. As for the table itself, a format like that may work. Though for the Philippines, I would much rather stick with regions instead of province since there are dozens of provinces affected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Death toll[edit]

According to the military, the death toll is 942, plus the 21 from Vietnam and Taiwan totals 963, as said in the fatalities section of the info box. However, Dr. Jeff Masters from wunderground said that the official death toll is 1774, also said in the fatalities section (it has a ref that links to the article) So should we leave it as 963+, change it to 1774 or put a dash between the two numbers meaning that the deaths are between these numbers 963 - 1774? Any thoughts? ItsPaide (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that those aren't completely separate counts which would ordinarily be summed for the total? (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats why I'm asking what the fatalities section should be. ItsPaide (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave it at ≥963 until a higher death toll is verified. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Technically as we are following the confirmed deaths (ie:NDRMMCs figures) we shouldn't be putting the Philippine total above 255, however, i have seen at least two article within the Philippine press are saying that the NDRMMC are about to put the death toll at 1774 within their next update.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We would update ASAP when they release the next update (Sitrep No.13 re Effects of TY "YOLANDA") for Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). ItsPaide (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The Philippine Army is apparently releasing its own numbers (CNN). Can we find their report? Rmhermen (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably not anymore, as we are trusting the NDRRMC when it comes to fatalities. ItsPaide (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the total to the 255 currently reported by the NDRRMC themselves, not through secondary sources. We're not a news agency so we don't need to have the immediate reports of higher tolls. We can serve to wait until the most reliable source is updated. They can be found here: [6] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup, I've been looking through the website all day and for some reason, they have not updated on Yolanda yet. Expecting one very soon.. ItsPaide (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
They may be shifting to once-per-day reporting now, which could by why there wasn't a 6 pm update from them. But yeah, there should be one out in the next hour or so. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Surprisingly, no update yet and its been 3 hours. ItsPaide (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they're busy. (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Since when do we pick one particular source and hold it above what the fact-checked and editor-staffed news media report? (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Because the media reports are not so fact-checked as you might think they are. Consider earlier this year the grossly overestimated death toll of the 2013 Moore tornado. Also, in the event that sources disagree, we should turn to the official report if one is available. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If the actual deaths were 23 what was the medias' guess?ItsPaide (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
All of the claims are still in that article as they are part of the story. So should all the reliably sourced ones for this event. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The actual death toll of the tornado was 23. Just after the tornado the reported death toll was 51. The New York Times reported a death toll of 91, so yeah, I'm not sure the news media are the most reliable source for death toll just after a major disaster. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
And all of those numbers are mentioned in the tornado article. We are covering the whole event, including the reporting of it/reaction to it. Rmhermen (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we went off-topic.. ..ItsPaide.. 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


>> Philippines in state of national calamity>> Philippine typhoon destroys homes and lives>> Stench of death lingers on Philippine island >> Philippine typhoon relief hampered by delays>> Desperation grips Philippine storm survivors >> Philippines racing to get aid to survivors[7][8]>> Prayers in Philippines as aid arrives>> Aid efforts in Philippines hit high gear>> The Philippines: After the storm>> Philippine children face malnutrition risk(Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)).

Reader feedback: Too technical for the average reader.[edit] posted this comment on November 11, 2013 (view all feedback).

Too technical for the average reader.

Any thoughts?

Well then, we cannot make it too simple either, but we can make it more comprehensible. However we also have to make it a good and organized article. ItsPaide (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I do think it's way too technical. That's what happens I suppose when you have a meteorological event paired with human disaster. The article becomes bloated with so much scientific at the start, the stuff we're actually interested in (the human side) gets lost somewhat. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is how just about every meteorological history goes for tropical cyclone articles. There's really not much more I can do with the meteorological history with simplifying it as I provided links to necessary articles and briefly explained lesser known things. Any simpler and it would have to be on the Simple English Wiki, in my opinion. That said, the lead could serve to have some meteo info trimmed out and the actual impact fleshed out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. Unfortunately I cannot view the comment you mentinioned (already rolled-off), but there are now 7 more comments, all of them marked as +Useful. Keep up the good work. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looting section should be moved down - clean up and restructure needed[edit]

I think the looting section should come after explaining the devastation, not before. People now days are too willing to blame without understanding. Some sections of this document need editing to clean up and structure the content. I am hoping the right people will do the job.

Thepigdog (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just moved the looting into aftermath where I originally put it. I removed some of the plagiarism in the article as well. Cleaning up the impact section is going to take a lot of work since it is littered with quotes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC on national calamity declaration[edit] has somesome potentially useful-for-editing facts and figures under "Struggle". (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Things that should redirect here, if they don't already. : Super typhoon Haiyan, Super Typhoon Haiyan, Super-typhoon Haiyan, Super-Typhoon Haiyan, Supertyphoon Haiyan, Haiyan (typhoon), Haiyan (supertyphoon), Haiyan (super-typhoon), Haiyan (super typhoon), Haiyan (2013), Haiyan (2013 typhoon), Haiyan (2013 supertyphoon), Haiyan (2013 super-typhoon), Haiyan (2013 super typhoon) -- (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a breakout article for the Effects of 2013 Typhoon Haiyan on the Philippines or somesuch? Clearly most coverage is dealing with that, and more information is coming out all the time. -- (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary at the moment. The primary area impacted by Haiyan is the Philippines and no other country has had such dramatic impacts as to bog down the page. The sub-articles are generally for storms that cause significant impacts in several countries or over many parts of a large country. For now, it's easier just to maintain it in one article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived URLs[edit]

I noticed that many of the references use WebCitation archive URLs in the url field of the templates (e.g. Template:Cite web). It is good practice (though definitely not required) to pre-emptively archive URLs like this. However, the 'url' field should be the original, while 'archiveurl' should be the archived one, and 'archivedate' should be the date it was archived. For links that currently work, deadurl should be set to no. I've made a note about this at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Templates. This ensures that for working links, we send people direct to the source, providing readable URLs (at least if the original is) and giving them credit.

Later, if the link dies, the 'deadurl' field can be removed. This should also be done if the content of the source changes (e.g. a storm update), but it's still appropriate to use the original version as a reference. It seems that the pages have a tendency to do this (e.g. vs., so I've left out deadurl for these for now.

I'm going to update the ones in the article, but I wanted to note this for the future. Superm401 - Talk 06:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I now understand better the nested archiving thing going on here (the first is the mirror). It looks like some pages (e.g. can't be archived directly by WebCitation due to a no-cache tag (, but most can. For instance, is a direct archive of .
I definitely think we should use direct archives (like the 6L4KcQJ4C example above) whenever possible. Besides being simpler, and having one less site to rely on, this means you can browse the various mirrors of the same URL when looking at However, this archiving needs to be done when the advisory comes out. Superm401 - Talk 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally when citing an advisory I tend to disagree that the url should be the url that webcite visits, as it is more useful if we just include a link to the where the various product is listed on the website of the issuing agency when they are dead references or i know that it will die within a few days. (eg: Rather than A id rather use B). As for how the archiving process works, generally the website will visit the site every few minutes and then subsequently upload them to the website. When someone has a chance they can subsequently archive them and put them on the various season talkpages. Its the only reasonable way we can work it as otherwise the websites overwrite themselves within 6 to twelve hours when a new advisory is issued.Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So, basically, we can't always use the "" as a reference because it changes so quickly (6 hours) with every new update, and if we don't use the "" mirror, we lose it forever? I noticed that there's a small group of dedicated people maintaining the WebCite archives, which is certainly commendable, so it makes sense that they wouldn't always be able to WebCite directly from the source. -- (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically yes - but off course it varies from storm to storm and centre to centre.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: meaning of the name[edit]

2001:5B0:28FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3D posted this comment on November 12, 2013 (view all feedback).

meaning of the name

Any thoughts?

We already have the meaning of the name "Haiyan" ItsPaide (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please change miles-per-hour to mph or better still to kmh (mph) (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Completed request. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to archive all URLs used for this article[edit]

How much time is needed to archive them? 'Cause I found articles that EMERCOM teams are already in the Philippines. Ominae (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

it shouldn't take too long to get them up to Webcite. :)Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan: Difference between revisions[edit]


The true scale of casualties remains unclear. The authorities say in November 12th at least 10,000 people may have died in the disaster - and according to UN officials about 11 million people have been affected, many have been left homeless.Tacloban: City at the centre of the storm BBC 12 November 2013

User:Cyclonebiskit addition deservs place in the introduction since these are key facts people in my opinion want to find from the article. Watti Renew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

10,000 fatalities is already in the lead and infobox, triple redundancy is highly unnecessary. Moving the 11 million affected (which is not supported by the Philippine Government mind you) to later in the intro. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

Suggest combining the 2 external links sections. (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


The typhoon was named Haiyan by whom and when? I suspect it was not when it "becom[e] a tropical storm and attain[ed] the name Haiyan at 0000 UTC on November 5". The name did not evolve out of nowhere when the system became a storm. (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, why does it have a different name in the Phillippines? (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Different agencies have different areas of resposibility and there is sometimes little cooperation. Whether it is a "tropical cyclone" (the name used in Australia), a "Typhoon", (the name used in Asia) or a "Hurricane" (the named used in the US and Atlantic) sounds a bit haphazard but, since these are the only areas they occur, perhaps the different names could be retained so we know where it occured. As to the name, every agency is entitled to call it whatever they like. It is not up the China or Japan to tell Phil what to call it or vice versa.Euc (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The name giving is clarified further in the meteorological history section. The lead is a basic summary meant to give a general overview, whereas the individual sections will have the more in-depth details (albeit the lead itself is lacking impact-wise at the moment...). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The JMA has a list of storms; they name a tropical cyclone whenever it attains winds of 35 knots or greater. The Philippines has their own naming list, separate from the JMA, and they name a storm (no matter the strength, as long as it is a tropical cyclone) whenever it comes into range of the Philippines. -- (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

In section on International response, please change "Israeli Foreing Ministry" to "Israeli Foreign Ministry" (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrected the typo. Thanks for letting us know. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)