Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Demarcating Active Storms

Currently, the table is denoting active storms with a green background. However, WP:COLOR states: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." As a result, I suggest returning to the old format of using Storm name (active). — Iune(talk) 23:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. All we need to change it back is consensus to do so.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. When did this change occur anyway? Dustin (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iune: @Dustin V. S.: I changed the table because Jason Rees told me so. I did rv him when he first edited a new table in the 2014 PTS article but he disagreed and rv my reverted edit. However I do not mind what kind of table is in for the Storm Names section, but I kind of like the PAGASA Storms table like that. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Jason Rees: I think this should be reverted per my comments above. Next time, Typhoon2013, it would be helpful if your edit summary contained the section name.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So can I change it back the way it was? However I like the new table for the Philippine Storms. How about you? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should be consistent and restore both to the old format. Either way color's not the way to go.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I know what you mean about why reverting it because of the color, but the new Philippine Storm name table doesn't include color. Ok, change of mind, I'll rv both tables from the 1993 season. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we should start out by restoring the old format, then, if somebody wants to propose a new format for all cyclone or typhoon-only seasons, he/she can bring the issue to WT:WPTC. Dustin (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Ok sure I'll try to restore the old format. But what if somehow an anonymous user(s) try to rv it several times? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Then it's an edit war and they have to stop doing it; page protection could be requested if it gets that bad, but I doubt it will.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon2013 is getting his apples and pears confused here and as a result i am grateful to Jasper Deng for pinging me as i am in and out at the moment. Anyway Typhoon2013 I authorised you to make a change to the layout of the naming section as the way it has been set up now looks a lot neater than the older version used and has been applied consistently. Turning my attention to what was originally mentioned about the background colouring, personally I feel that we do not need to note that a system name is active in bolding yet alone using colours to do so. I feel like its a waste of an edit that could be used elsewhere to improve the articles which i notice from edit summuaries are getting sloppy in my absence.Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Sorry I should've pinged you earlier. So what now? What format are we using for naming storms? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Linfa / Egay death toll?

As I heard, there was a boat capsized over Ormoc and so far killed 36 people. Some say it was due to the tropical storm since it produced waves which caused the boat to turn over. What do you guys think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read it's being attributed to human error rather than the weather. Abrupt shift in weight distribution tipped the boat and the waves just helped it along. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Hmm. Otherwise it killed 36 people indirectly. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not even indirectly. It's almost entirely unrelated to Linfa, not even worth a brief mention. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Today, I just heard that that about 5 people were killed from the flooding caused by both Linfa and Chan-hom. Yes it was from the southwest monsoon as well. Do they count? Or should we not count it but mention it? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's related to Typhoon Chan-hom, according to the NDRRMC. Since it's listed as a separate event, I'd mention the effects of it but not include them in the deaths/damage stats. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Ok sure. I'll mention that in the article of Chan-hom since I'm just started creating it in one of my sandboxes. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

JMA TD 17 dissipation date

What's confusing by the JMA is that for this TD, they last showed it in their weather maps on July 21 00Z which means that the TD dissipated on July 21. However the JMA last mentioned the TD on July 20 18Z. So what is the real dissipation date of this TD? Is it July 20 or 21? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If its not on the text advisory then we can not verify it was on the weather maps in 6 months time. As a result we have to use the 20th.Jason Rees (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Halola (Goring) only central Pacific storm to enter PAR besides Paka?

I'm not exactly sure as to whether or not this other storm I discovered should be noted, but Tropical Storm Winona of 1989 reached tropical storm strength in the Central Pacific, however it was not operationally named until entering the West Pacific because of it's "unique circumstances." http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1989/1/track.dat Best track data also indicates that it was a tropical storm upon entering the Philippine Area of Responsibility, however I cannot find anything to indicate that it received a Filipino name either. Does Winona count? Undescribed (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally i kind of feel that its trivial that Goring made it to PAR since as PAGASA noted on Facebook its only technically in, as a result im not sure we should be noting the record. Either way Winola would count since it was most probably named Atring while in PAR, however, proving it is another kettle of fish.Jason Rees (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Very true. Even Paka although it entered the PAR it never reached the Philippines so all three of the storms weren't notable in that sense. I'm not sure if Guam is located within the PAR however. Either way it is interesting nonetheless that Halola was able to achieve this feat. And I also saw for the 89' Pacific typhoon season a depression which formed near the Philippines, however I was not able to find any data on that so it's possible that that storm was named Atring and not even Winola.Undescribed (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Guam is not in the PAR. We should avoid this as it's basically original research, unless a third-party reliable source says this definitely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: @Undescribed: Just saying for Winona, it did made it into the PAR but PAGASA didn't tracked it so it was not Atring. Atring was a separate storm. Also I added this sentence: "first time since Paka" because I just noticed it and that's why I put in my edit summary if we shall add it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you know if it was tracked by PAGASA or not @Typhoon2013:, also since its trivia over an unofficial warning boundry i have removed it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I left a message in the Talk:1989 Pacific typhoon season on your topic. To add as well, possibly Atring was the TD that brought heavy rainfall within the PHL (or see the Other systems section). Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

New season forecasts table?

I agree with @Jason Rees: for adding a new version for the Season forecasts table by adding new agencies in it. However Jason I would rather retain the Typhoons column (just in the right of the total TCs fo far) in it just like before if it's ok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record I decided to rework, update and expand the section a little bit, since it looks like TSR have not issued any forecasts recently for either the Atlantic or the Pacific. However, @Typhoon2013: I am forced to remove the Typhoon and intense typhoon columns since TSR have only issued 1 forecast so far and are about 1 month late. However, I should be able to rework the table, to add it in to the actual activity section but need to think it through first.Jason Rees (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have finished playing with the section for now and I think it looks a lot better than previously with more agencies included. However, I would be open to feedback on it and the section from others.Jason Rees (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

14W

@Typhoon2013: JTWC is really messing up here, but this now exists.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I know and I'm sorry for all those (too many) edits on 14W. 14W is not yet on the JTWC page on my computer. The JTWC is too confusing but thank you for the source. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not even your fault. The JTWC has been very clumsy with this. For example they briefly issued a warning for 14W but labelled it a TCFA. They're also late with their prognostic reasoning for Soudelor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So is 14W really a 30-knot depression or not? Apparently it's still not fixed. The National Hurricane Center's website (www.nhc.noaa.gov) is also glitching. What's wrong with these US TC Warning websites? KN2731 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the data file, yes. It looks like the JTWC is struggling over whether to classify it or not. But usually assigning the number 14W is an irreversible step towards classifying it. I'm not sure what's up with the NHC site.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and KN2731: They re-issued the warning, this time under the proper header. Fingers crossed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Jasper Deng: The Warning Graphic has been re-issued now. According to the graphic 14W should have a brief existence though. (NHC website also fixed.) KN2731 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: @KN2731: Yep, now confirmed as 14W. At least someone was also active about 14W because he already created the JTWC forecast map before me, including a new image. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Misleading info in the season forecast table

I truthfully haven't given much attention to this section since it's been well-referenced, but a quick glance over it shows that the table is potentially misleading. It groups all forecasts of activity into "tropical cyclones" which is later used to indicate how many systems are classified as tropical depressions or higher by the JMA/JTWC. Looking at the forecasts individually, some do indicate tropical cyclones in general; however, most specify tropical storms, which is distinctly different from the broader TC category. The current way it's formatted indicates that the JMA is already nearing the latest forecast by the TSR (21 actual tropical cyclones against the 30 tropical cyclones forecast) whereas in reality, they state 30 tropical storms. The table needs to be restructured to specify when these numbers are for tropical storms specifically so people do not misinterpret what's being presented. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just pinged @Jason Rees: for this one. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Who removed the section?

Who removed the "Other storms" section? Isn't it suppose to be there? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the revision history, so I have no idea who deleted it. Probably by accident though. Anyway http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/ says Molave is subtropical. KN2731 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Found where it happened. The IP's other edits appear constructive so I'm assuming it was an accident. Already went ahead and restored the content. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

08E remnants?

I just wanted to ask that is the remnant energy of 08E formed one of these two active storms today (Goni and Atsani)? In this site: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ , I followed 08E from its dissipation (July 30) until August 13. With the result, 08E's remnants was slow when it was in the CPHC basin, crossed the basin either on August 7-8, collided with an area of convection then expanded which separated into Goni and Atsani. What do you guys think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The remnants of 08E completely disintegrated shortly after crossing the dateline, any convection thereafter was associated with the ITCZ and later the monsoon trough. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Loke

According to the CPHC, or in their last advisory, it was said that Loke was at 179.9E (which is now the WPac basin). However the JMA didn't tracked it nor designating it as 1517. So do we add here a section of Loke? If we do, we put it was classified by JTWC instead of JMA. What do you guys think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It could have a mention in the "Other storms" section, with only the CPHC calling it a tropical storm (just barely) in the basin. The JMA only recognized it as gale-force low and the JTWC did not issue any warnings. Since the JMA didn't even recognize it as tropical, I'd opt to exclude it personally. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I support Loke having a mention in Other Storms. @Typhoon2013: @Cyclonebiskit: Izmik (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with other storms, and there is precedent. I mentioned a TD the JMA recognized in the 2002 PHS (pre-Kalmaegi) that wasn't recognized by the CPHC, so same situation here. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: @Izmik: Ok, will put it in Other storms section. However do we also put Loke in the Season timeline and Season effects section? Or possibly put at the start that there are 16 offical tropical storms but 1 unofficial? Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: – Doesn't get put in the timeline but is included as an unofficial tropical storm in the infobox. I don't think it should be put in the season effects table either. Minimize the exposure to it since it's not an official system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I gather, the CPHC placed it as being tropical in the WPac in their last advisory, but the JMA treated it as a "developing low" from their first Marine Bulletin if that changes anything with regards to Loke. — Iune(talk) 22:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: @Iune: I just noticed this today. I've put '(Exited basin)' in Loke's infobox in the 2015 PHS article. Should we add this or no? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not personally see the need to note that it left the basin on the PHS page in the way you want too Typhoon2013, when its only 1 advisory in the basin it moves into. This is what we did with Bakung last year in the end.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Images and things

Hi. I just wanted to mention two things here. First, somehow these bots (I don't know what they are) aren't archiving these topics in this talk page (if they do). This talk page is now filled with a bunch of stuff and now old. Also I feel awkward because most topics left in here are from only myself.

Second, I just wanted to state about images. For Tropical Storms Vamco and Grace, I could not find any best images of them at peak strength (or at least very close to peak). If you look at Vamco's infobox, its image looks like there's just a cloud over Vietnam but not a storm imo. Even though Grace's image is fine but not close to peak strength, I feel like its not the best image yet until we find an image at peak. Just to double check, the true image we put storm infoboxes are suppose to be at peak right? Also which image do you guys think suit Vamco? Vamco 2015-09-15 0455Z.jpg or JMA TD 26 2015-09-13 0330Z.jpg ?Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Images tend to be used subjectively when we don't have a high resolution one available around peak intensity. Either image for Vamco is fine, in my opinion, but I'm leaning toward the second one as well. There's always the option to us NRL vis/ir imagery via MTSAT, such as this one, but it needs to be modified by someone to included a colored version. I believe @Supportstorm: knows how to do this. Additionally, @Meow: might be able to procure a colored Himawari-8 image for Vamco at its peak, as she has done for several other storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately RealEarth™ now provides much smaller pieces of Himawari-8 imageries, so I need to take much more time to combine. I will only build Himawari-8 true-colour images when the tropical cyclone is important or strong enough. Besides, RealEarth™ archives only 3 days. -- Meow 11:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...would we be able to use the Himawari-8 color images provided via CIRA RAMMB? Their archive extends back 4 weeks and includes all 10 minute imagery. I think the resolution would be similar to the composite images you provide (probably a bit smaller), but without being flattened. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything wrong with the VIIRS image? Looks like it took an overhead shot of Vamco on September 14. Supportstorm (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The full-disk images from RAMMB are beautiful, but it is pitiful that their resolution is only 2 km. -- Meow 07:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the good thing we have images and I thank @Meow: and sometimes @Nino Marakot:. Also just saw the latest image of Vamco. Thanks @Supportstorm: Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

In the Severe Tropical Storm Choi-Wan section there are two tense errors. Right after reference 378 in the sentence Choi-wan, despite in favorable conditions, still maintains its intensity as a weak system due to a large and very broad circulation as mesovortices were cyclonically rotating in its center. the word maintains should be maintained. Also after reference 380 in the sentence With a ragged eye, the JMA upgrades Choi-wan to a severe tropical storm. the word upgrades should be upgraded. Please fix. 73.223.175.207 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Melor

This evening PAGASA assigned Melor the name Nonoy when it entered PAR, however, they renamed it Nona in an updated advisory. This is probably due to the president being known as Nonoy by his critics, either way I think we should use both names to describe the system since they were both assigned.Jason Rees (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Nonoy" was immediately dropped for political reasons, and is not used to identify the system. It's been clarified through media that the system's name is "Nona". All mentions except one outdated map in the first advisory—even the advisory itself says Nona—on PAGASA's site show Nona rather than Nonoy. Listing both names just makes it confusing as it's quite clear that "Nonoy" has been completely dropped. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)