Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Added HKO TCWS to {{Template:TyphoonWarningsTable}}

Hi! Just wanted to tell everyone that I updated the {{TyphoonWarningsTable}} template to also include the Hong Kong Observatory Tropical Cyclone Warning Signals as defined in the Tropical cyclone warnings and watches page. This also renames one parameter: source is now PHsource to make way for HKsource. Please use the newer parameter name from now on. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please...

... see the JMA weather maps should a TC is active or not. Chan-hom, as of this message, is still active as a TD. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'm not the one changing the dates, but both this page and this page seem to show Nangka as the only active system. Here's some screenshots to confirm: 1 2. Unless you're using some other weather map which is more detailed. Chlod (say hi!) 07:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: I was not mentioning you. But now we must look at the weather maps for the JMA. Nangka is no longer active per them, and the remnants of Chan-hom is still active as a TD. This is the norm of what we have been doing for a very long time. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite?

There's been a {{cleanup rewrite}} tag that has been on the article since July 2020, but there's been not much effort on rewriting the article despite the number of editors that edit it frequently. A quick comparison with other season articles and WP:WPTC/S doesn't really show anything that strays far from the usual style. Does the article really need to undergo a rewrite, and if it does, what exactly needs to be rewritten? Chlod (say hi!) 01:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The first few storm sections could probably be condensed such that each system only has one to two paragraphs of meteorological history. Most of the prose issues that were present when the tag was inserted have been addressed (there's an obvious difference in writing quality between now and, for example, early August), but there's still lots of cn tags that are still valid. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. However, my article chopping skills are subpar so I don't think I'm in the best place to be condensing those sections (aside from being really busy.) If anyone can get to that soon, that'd be great. Don't want to have that tag stick forever. Chlod (say hi!) 14:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

TS Linfa

If the current data that the article presents (74 inches of rain in Central Vietnam?!) then we really need to expand the article. Over 53 people died in Vietnam. If that data that it produced 74 inches of rain in Vietnam, it would also be the sixteenth-wettest tropical cyclone worldwide. Why is the article only filled with around 13 sentences? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No images - 20W

20W currently has no images regarding the storm. Can you fix that? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@CyclonicStormYutu: Will be uploading the geostationary image soon just after this message. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Higos

Just recently, I have started this draft. This idea came up when I thought about making a serious contribution to the WPTC about current events rather than creating/splitting old storm stuff. Is this article neccessary? Sorry for asking this simple question. SMB99thx my edits 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@SMB99thx: Any storm that passes WP:GNG can be an article, according to WP:WPTC/GUIDE. If you can find some good sources (given that the storm has decent coverage), then feel free to write that article. WP:WPTC/S might be helpful in determining its structure. Good luck! Chlod (say hi!) 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Effects of the 2020 PTS in ...

I think we should bring back these type of articles again judging the impact of these TCs especially in Korea, Philippines and Vietnam? Especially with the added distractions towards Covid then I think it is necessary to make these articles. Only two articles were made (for the PH) in 2009 and 2013 as an example. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, especially with all the recent article merge discussions (with Linfa, Nangka, and Saudel) which have been getting rid of the more recent tropical storm articles. And it's a bit annoying to see that much article content get cut because impact was localized to a specific area. Chlod (say hi!) 02:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I support. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

While an effects of the xxxx Pacific Typhoon Season on YYYY are an interesting proposal - we have to remember that this year the monsoon has been the main cause of the flooding in Vietnam etc. As a result, I wonder if an article on the Effects of the 2020 Southwest monsoon on YYYY is more appropiate.Jason Rees (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we supposed to count TCA's?

PAGASA Tropical Cyclone Advisories are usually issued when a system enters the TCAD. However, are we supposed to count tropical cyclone advisories? In this edit, it says that PAGASA had been part of the agencies that upgraded the storm into TS status, but do we really have to include this given that we only ever add upgrade information when there's a warning being issued? TCAs are merely advisories in the first place — they don't hold any merit aside from a warning that a tropical cyclone is approaching, compared to SWBs, which include TCWS levels and hazard analyses. Chlod (say hi!) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Goni article already?

I really think that Typhoon Goni deserves its own article. Althought right now, it is only a Severe Tropical Storm/Category 1 Typhoon (JTWC), it is rapidly intensifying and according to the JTWC forecast, it could make a Super Typhoon landfall on Northern Luzon, with winds of 120 — 130 kt. I think such a big threat to the Philippines should have an article.DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk 13:22, October 29, 2020 (UTC)

Create a draft, then. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not predict the future. Right now the only thing we can put in the article, if ever, is the meteorological history. Give it some time (possibly after the typhoon has made its impact) before making the article. For now, just keep everything inside of the system's section, and we'll just transfer all the extra bits later. Chlod (say hi!) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: Agreed. I am working on a draft right now. For now, I will keep it hidden. But eventually I will have to create it because as Goni continues to intesify, so is its threat level to the Philippines. DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Error

There's an error in the Philippines warning table. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Sorry about that. I was trying to get rid of two extra line breaks that I put in while adding support for the Hong Kong warnings and inadvertently removed a |} which was supposed to close the table. It's fixed now. Chlod (say hi!) 10:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Change {{TyphoonWarningsTable}} colors for PH signals

Right now, the SSHWS scale colors are used for TCWS signals, which don't exactly translate well. How's changing the signal colors to match the colors in the PAGASA signals graphic sound? I've provided an example of that below. Chlod (say hi!)

Original

Proposed

{{TyphoonWarningsTable |PHtime = this moment in time |PH5 = 5 |PH4 = 4 |PH3 = 3 |PH2 = 2 |PH1 = 1 |PHsource = [http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/tropical-cyclone/severe-weather-bulletin/2 PAGASA] }}

Philippines (as of this moment in time) Signal #5 Winds of at least 220 km/h, (137 mph) are expected to occur within 12 hours. 5 Signal #4 Winds of 171–220 km/h, (106–137 mph) are expected to occur within 12 hours. 4 Signal #3 Winds of 121–170 km/h, (74–105 mph) are expected to occur within 18 hours. 3 Signal #2 Winds of 61–120 km/h, (38–73 mph) are expected to occur within 24 hours. 2 Signal #1 Winds of 30–60 km/h (20–37 mph) are expected to occur within the next 36 hours. 1 Source: PAGASA

Apparently the color for signal #4 is different on the PAGASA website, so maybe we can use this darker color instead of the bright red. Chlod (say hi!) 13:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the proposed colors for TCWS #5 and #4 (#CD00CD and #FD0000) don't meet MOS:CONTRAST with black text. Something like #CD77CD and #FF6060 could work though. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Changed to #CD00CD and #FD0000 #CD77CD and #FF6060 [typo]. How does that look? Chlod (say hi!) 15:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Chlod (say hi!) 02:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Really late reply - but yeah it looks good. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Vamco/Etau

I have made a draft for Vamco if anybody wants to edit it. Has anybody made a draft for Etau? If not I may create the draft for it. Thanks! Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Etau doesn't look worthy of an article. It was just a tropical storm that caused rains and then disappeared before it even became a severe tropical storm. As for Vamco (and you really should have linked to the draft), can't put anything on there until later, otherwise it'd be WP:CRYSTAL. Chlod (say hi!) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, just a heads up, copying within Wikipedia requires attribution. Since you didn't put anything in your edit summary, I put the notice on the talk page. Chlod (say hi!) 17:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why Etau shouldn't get an article. The storm looks to be headed straight towards Vietnam, a country that has been hit by 6 named tropical systems in the past month. However, I do think we should wait until we see some impacts to consider an article. Gex4pls (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what 2020 Central Vietnam floods is for. Also, the Philippines gets its fair share of landfalls too, but we never make articles for them unless they did enough damage to be notable. Chlod (say hi!) 20:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that article should probably be linked to the article-less storm, and it could definitely use a clean up. Gex4pls (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The JMA marked Vamco with a Dvorak of 5.0 (80 knots) at 1800z 11NOV2020, so the pressure of the system may drop a little more than 970 later. ~ VOFFA

valid sources

Blocked sock

This issue Valid sources Retirement Typhoon Vamco Typhoon Goni Typhoon Molave XxxCycloneXxx (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Typhoon Vongfong XxxCycloneXxx (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Please we need to fix this issue ? XxxCycloneXxx (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC) XxxCycloneXxx, I can't understand what you want to say. Could you explain again so that we can understand better? JavaHurricane 15:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: user has been indeffed as a sock. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

KN2731, noted. Did not receive ping as I have turned off notifications for pings due to abuse by vandals. JavaHurricane 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Linfa split

I believe Linfa should have an article because,

1. Linfa did $767 million and killed 137
2. 12th wettest storms
3. The 2020 Central Vietnam floods article is quite long, may be better to split off portion of it and trim
4. Caused some damage in Cambodia and other parts of Southeastern Asia

Do not just say Support or Oppose, say why. These are !votes. Also, when the discussion is done, if closed by a non admin, please note it in the closure by saying {{nac}}. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said before, Linfa was not the sole factor in the 137 deaths and $767 million in damage. It was part of a monsoonal trough. The parts about Cambodia are included in the Vietnam flood article. Just being the 11th wettest storm does not make it notable. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 19:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, despite supporting a split earlier off-wiki. Cambodia impact is just "some", as you have said, and as told by the draft, it's not that notable to the point where it only garnered a single sentence.

The 2020 Central Vietnam floods article was not created "mainly for Linfa", as the floods started even before Linfa became a tropical depression. It just so happens that at the time of article creation, Linfa had been a large contributor to the flooding — however not its only contributor. Earlier rains had already inundated parts of Vietnam and Linfa had only worsened conditions — not caused it. This isn't even solid grounds for a split, as splits are done due to the current amount (or the future amount, after improvement) of available content. They're not done because the supposed "main article" has been edited "less and less for Linfa", steering the supposed "primary topic" off the page. If the floods article were actually made for Linfa, then it would have been merged to Linfa's article, not the other way around.

Next, being the "11th wettest storm" (it's the 12th, by the way) does not automatically warrant an article. The 6th doesn't have its own article either. The record of "12th wettest storm" can fit snugly in the List of wettest tropical cyclones article, or in a small sentence in the season article.

Lastly, a quick Google search on "Tropical Storm Linfa", shows that the amount of news articles mentioning the storm as the main topic are significantly less than those on the floods. The floods are the obvious primary topic here, not Linfa. The flooding is the one with coverage and the one with the more notable impact, therefore our attention should be more on the flooding, not the tropical storm that contributed to it. On a smaller note, please do note that non-admins can close a discussion which doesn't require administrator intervention, such as an article split. We are not required to add an {{nac}} template to the closure. Also stating how to run proper discussion is unnecessary, unless you're assuming we all haven't read WP:VOTE. Chlod (say hi!) 20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: if that's the case, it should be an article, however, I must say, while Nangka was notable, Linfa was more notable. Also, while Nangka did kill 2 people in China, plenty of storms that killed 2 don't have an article. Example-Eduardo 14. But I don't want to venture off to WP: OSE. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: It killed 2 people in China and did some damage. Edouard 2014 killed 2 people from rip currents and unlike Chris, it caused no damage. Anyway, we're getting off topic again. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 01:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Don't say that you don't want to OSE right after performing an OSE. I also can't see how you're saying that Linfa should be an article, when all I've stated is how it shouldn't be an article. You're being too vague with your comments. Should I take this as a withdrawal or what? Chlod (say hi!) 02:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, and no, don’t close it as a withdraw yet, given how a user did give a weak support. (Otherwise I’d be on with a withdrawal, possibly if this discussion ends with no split we can send the draft to WP: MFD. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion shouldn't close when it began less than 8 hours ago. It should remain open for at least 48 hours, especially since many people such as myself do not log on Wikipedia every day.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, correct. That’s why it lasts a week, with 24 hours at bare minimum unless it’s obvious WP: SNOW. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Off topic, useless discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Chlod: Ok, but also, no WPTC member should close it because we're all impartial. Tbh, we should let an uninvolved user to close it. Someone could !supervote by closing the discussion, and we must avoid it.--HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) @HurricaneTracker495: No, anyone can close it, WPTC member or not. Also, we're getting off-topic here with discussing closes and stuff. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) @HurricaneTracker495: Since continuing this would be going off topic from what we're here for, I've left the relevant message on your talk page. Chlod (say hi!) 00:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Slightly support even though the cyclone wasn't the sole contributor to the Vietnam floods overall, it aggravated the disaster. The flood event in Vietnam was a lengthy one with many weather systems contributing to the overall result. So I'd imagine there would be many areas to cover.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Linfa's impact in Cambodia was heavy. If Cambodia was explained in the general flood article, I am puzzled that the article has not been renamed to '2020 Central Vietnam and Cambodia floods'.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I did suggest that 2020 Central Vietnam floods be moved somewhere else about two months ago since it actually mentions impacts in Cambodia, but the discussion was closed as stale. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The general floods article delves into Cambodia very lightly, and I could only make out mentions of Cambodia associated with storm Linfa and not with the other weather systems that affected Central Vietnam. Was it then that the only storm that caused havoc in Cambodia was Linfa? If not, the flood article needs serious work putting in the effects of the other typhoons/depressions/monsoonal stuff that affected Cambodia. If so, then all the more reason for a sole article about Linfa.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Slightly Support, Linfa may meet the requirements for an article, but, I’m not sure there is enough reliable sources to do that. Sure Nangka isn’t that notable, but it caused damage (proved by reliable sources). However, that doesn’t mean Linfa automatically gets an article. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Robloxsupersuperhappyface: That seems like an oppose. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I found this news solely about Linfa. Although they called it 'Typhoon Linfa'. It lists 148 deaths precisely in the report. Now the question is whether VietNamNet is reliable news. Anyone here know more about this website?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  @CyclonicallyDeranged: Please take that to WP: RSN, where other users(not involved with WPTC)can comment. And, there are more RS experts there. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nahhhh that will take too long. The site appears to be maintained under the Vietnam government per here. Looks quite reliable. I asked about the site here if anyone on WPTC is familiar with the site already. From your response it appears you are unfamiliar...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  @CyclonicallyDeranged: per WP: RSN, not so reliable. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, interesting discussion.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148 for more discussion.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The initial message of this discussion was amended with this edit, and previous comments may not reflect the current state of the proposal. A version of the page prior to the changes can be found on this permalink. Chlod (say hi!) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  @HurricaneTracker495: As a form of basic courtesy to other editors, please indicate your changes when modifying your initial proposal. Thanks. Chlod (say hi!) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, noted for future reference. @Destroyeraa, CyclonicallyDeranged, Chicdat, and Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Change any opinions with the modifications? --Hurricane Tracker 495 17:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  @HurricaneTracker495 and Chlod: No opinion change. Thanks, ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 17:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Likewise. Chlod (say hi!) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  None--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

While Linfa's impacts could probably fit into the 2020 Vietnam floods article, we are talking about a system that the NMHSS of Vietnam are saying caused 138 deaths. As a result, I feel that Linfa will be retired and deserves it own article, while the Vietnam floods should be expanded to include Cambodia, Laos Thailand and probs China/Myanmar.Jason Rees (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495 - no opinion change Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, still oppose. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Originally did not know where to stand for this until what JR said. Should Linfa's name be retired then yea splitting it off could be an idea. But personally, the series of Vietnam storms associated with the monsoon combined can be fit to the 2020 Vietnam floods article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Krovanh

I have made a draft for Krovanh. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops forgot to add the 2020 sorry here it is Draft:Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020) Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)