Talk:Typhoon Lan (2017)

Requested move 21 October 2017

The following is a closed 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: page moved. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Typhoon Lan (2017) → Typhoon Lan – Only TC named Lan, and based on its current path, the only one for the foreseeable future. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Move this is a great example of when not to open a WP:RM and just move it yourself. There is no reason to include the year whatsoever. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The thing is I can’t move it as it doesn’t give me permission. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Do not move How could you say it will be the only one for the foreseeable future? If Lan is not retired this time, it will be used again in 2022 or 2023. 🐱💬 05:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We do not live in the future. When Lan is used again we can move it back. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, only administrators and users with page-mover rights can move articles back like that. So for most of us, that's not really an option, if we were to move this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If proven to be necessary in the future, we always have the option of pinging administrators if and when another "Lan" reaches equal or greater significance. While I don't think that will be necessary, we do have the option, even though most of us couldn't directly perform this task ourselves. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While this storm is proving to be notable, that does not mean that it is notable enough to have the article name reserved for itself (without the date tag). Unless this storm breaks some records or becomes extremely damaging, this article shouldn't be moved. Predicting that this storm would be notable enough to take the main "Typhoon Lan" page is an example of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we don't want to do that. For the time being, keep the article as it is. BTW, there can be a Typhoon Lan page at the moment, for the purpose of disambiguation. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the only tropical cyclone named Lan though. So a dab page would be unnecessary. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support move, the stupidity of the crystal-ballers this time around is astounding.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL nor notability, and is apparent unnecessary disambiguation as there is no other typhoons of the same name. Hayman30 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This warrants a very speedy move. I'm not sure if it's necessary to go through a list of reasons for why this storm easily warrants being the primary but I could list several: it's impacting Japan at major hurricane (Saffir-Simpson) status, it's the most intense in the Pacific that this season has seen so far, and it's the second widest cyclone recorded second to only Tip. Much like the drafts for Irma and Maria this is a storm where its article should have been published without the year's name as its already proven to be an exceptional storm unambiguously; this isn't an instance where we need to wait for it to be retired. In short, disambiguation is for ambiguous situations, and this isn't one of them. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - @LightandDark2000: come on you know the drill. This is the first time "Lan" is used and we'll never know if it will be used soon. But because you are impatient, I would just wait for March 2018 when JMA releases typhoon retirement names and should Lan is not retired, then you could revert it back. Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding closure of this request, does this warrant a WP:SNOW closure in favor of renaming it? If so, should we ping administrators? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I'm moving the page. This is the second largest gale diameter cyclone on record. We don't need to wait for the name to officially be retired. BearGlyph (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Can't move the page, as the redirect page is currently occupying the destination spot. The redirect page needs to be deleted before this page can be moved, and I do not have that privilege. BearGlyph (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging @Cyclonebiskit: to see if they believe this request for comment warrants closure as of now. If so, they also have the ability to move the article name for us. The RFC was started on 21st October and per RFC guidelines the preferred minimum is ~7 days and the default minimum is ~30 days, but in this instance there does seem to be WP:SNOW support for a speedy move, but since consensus is to be determined by administrators I'll let them decide whether we should wait for more !votes or not. As there's no other storms named Lan to warrant a disambiguation page, we'll hopefully have the name changed soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• What RFC? While most the arguments listed above aren't very strong (this isn't the primary since it's the only Lan and no one will remember how large Lan was in 10-15 years), I'd still argue WP:SNOW applies here for my initial reasoning. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that SNOW does apply here, my hesitance with closing this was because consensus-based discussions typically do last longer unless they have a SNOW support (as this one seems to). It's the primary topic because it's the only topic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2017 (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.

Alaska

The remnants of this storm struck, and did damage, in Alaska. Multiple references given. Please do not remove this information without discussion. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion as those references are unofficial. You can create a separate article named October 2017 Bering Sea cyclone if you want. 🐱💬 06:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced, in this instance there's no issue with adding that information. Creating a separate article for Lan's remnants would be nonsensical. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, according to the sources provided, it is another extratropical cyclone, which had earlier absorbed the remnants of Typhoon Lan. That new extratropical system then developed into a bomb cyclone. BTW, those references are not unofficial, it just so happens that Lan had already been absorbed by then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)