Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CyclonicallyDeranged (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 11 December 2020 (→‎Linfa split). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Locations of advisories

Tropical Weather Outlooks: ABPW10
Tropical Cyclone Advisories:
JMA: 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // WWJP27
JTWC: 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 //
NWS Guam: 01 // 02 // 03
Hong Kong: WTSS20 // WTPQ20 //
Korea: Korea //
ICAO: 01 // 02 // 03
Prognostic Reasonings:
JMA: 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05
JTWC: 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // TCFA 1 // TCFA 2
PAGASA: Severe Weather Bulletin // Tropical Cyclone Advisory // Typhoon Warning // Tropical Cyclone Index
Archives: CMA // HKO // SMG// JMA // JTWC // NOAA // TMD // KMA // PAGASA// NCHMF// IEM
Best Track: JMA // JTWC/NRL

RSMC Best Track Data

JMA (all tracks) // NOAA // WIS Portal

Name Date Released
2001.Vongfong August 18
2002.Nuri August 26
2003.Sinlaku October 20
2004.Hagupit November 27
2005.Jangmi November 27
2006.Mekkhala December 2
2007.Higos December 2
2008.Bavi December 3
2009.Maysak
2010.Haishen
2011.Noul
2012.Dolphin
2013.Kujira
2014.Chan-hom
2015.Linfa
2016.Nangka
2017.Saudel
2018.Molave
2019.Goni
2020.Atsani
2021.Etau
2022.Vamco

Storm count tally

Level Vongfong Nuri Carina TD Sinlaku Hagupit Jangmi Gener Mekkhala Higos Bavi Maysak Haishen 12W Noul Dolphin Kujira TD Chan-hom Linfa Nangka Ofel Saudel 20W Molave Goni Atsani Etau Vamco TD
JMA 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 1
JTWC 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 3
PAGASA 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3
1: Tropical depression (JMA, JTWC, PAGASA), 2: TS/STS (JMA, JTWC, PAGASA), 3: TY/STY (JMA, JTWC, PAGASA)


Agency TD TS TY
JMA 30 22 10
JTWC 25 23 12
PAGASA 21 15 7

Some sort of edit war?

So I've been noticing a small edit war regarding the image of TD Ambo in the current infobox section. I would like to know why it's been added and removed because I find this odd. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10-min and 1-min winds

I have noticed in some Pacific typhoons, including Ambo/Vongfong, that the 10-min sustained winds are higher than the 1-min sustained winds. Why is this? I hope this isn’t a stupid question, as I mainly study Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricanes. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the dark side of the project and its not a stupid question. We take the winds from the warning centres (JMA/JTWC) who analyse the system separately and dont always agree with each other. Jason Rees (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Small modification of the TyphoonWarningsTable template

Hello! I would like to suggest if the PAGASA TyphoonWarningsTable template be modified in such a way that the tropical cyclone warnings are ordered from highest to lowest, similar to how PAGASA presents them in their severe weather bulletin. I think it is better if higher warnings are placed in the first rows (as "top priority"). Thank you! —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

@Nairb.Idi9: Sure I'll try do something about it today. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nairb.Idi9: Done. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013: Thank you! —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

Lead

The lead is really long. Most of the things there should be able to go into different sections. A five-paragraph lead is much longer than an article's lead usually should be on Wikipedia, and there's no need to make an exception for this article. MOS:LEAD says: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Leads should have no more than four paragraphs. This one has five. I think most of that content should find its way into another section. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 12:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry to much about the lead for now as the season has only just started after all.Jason Rees (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping storm sections succinct

Just because this is the season article, and PTS articles tend to be a larger article than the other basin articles, I'd advice to summarise or succinct the storm sections. We can provide as much as detail as possible when the storm article has been created. Kind regards, Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:29 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in working on Typhoons in the Ryukyu Islands, or Typhoons in Zhejiang?

Hagupit affected both territories. Given the importance of both of them (and any area in the WPAC, really), I wondered if anyone might be interested in helping write one of the articles above? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I am entered. I haven't been on wikipedia that much lately, but, table format is fine right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the table format should be fine. These drafts might take a while to develop, so that's why I figured, let's get them started. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Im in. I think every Chinese province and Japanese territory that are threatened by typhoons deserve an article. For example could you also make a draft of Typhoons in Fujiang? By the way, i think maybe you could also change the drafts into categories, But its your decision.DavidTheMeteorologist🌦❄️🌪
@DavidTheMeteorologist: Remember that you are the decision-maker as well, since nobody owns these articles. We are currently looking in general at what weather articles are needed by Wikipedia and I can confirm that Typhoons in Fujiang is on the list as are the rest of the Chinese Provinces. However, I would be curious to know which Japanese territories your thinking off and any thoughts you have on any other part of the list. However, im not personally sure about categorising Typhoon pages on Wikipedia into Chinese provinces is a good idea as it might be an over-categorisation.Jason Rees (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: A lot of Japanese islands like Iwo Jima and Ogasawara have Typhoons affecting them every year. These are the islands that I think deserve the article, as well as some other islands. Also I do agree with the over-categorization fact. So I could do it like a normal list of Typhoons. — DavidTheMeteorologist🌦❄️🌪(talk)
Do you mean Fujian or Fujiang? Also, yea, Iwo Jima and Ogasawara might get affected every year, but they're so much less populated than, say, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Taiwan, or the Ryukyus. Even the Marianas Islands (Guam and CNMI combined) is affected yearly, but would be a good list to have. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinlaku draft

Sinlaku left much damage on Vietnam and Thailand, so I created a draft for Sinlaku. Could someone help? Regards, 👦 06:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no thanks. There have been plenty of minimal tropical storms that have hit this region and do not have articles. 2 deaths is not enough for an article, either. Not a notable system. If anything, Hagupit is more deserving of an article. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricaneboy23:, you didn't have to respond to that if you didn't want to help. Remember to keep a civil and peaceful tone. We're all just volunteers. I believe that most landfalling WPAC storms warrant articles, so yes, 2 deaths is often "enough for an article", because there are usually other effects caused by the storms that are worthy of documentation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hagupit article

I was wondering if anyone was already working on a Hagupit article and if not, should I? BananaIAm (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

people are being too lazy to source stuff and to even write properly

honestly we have to do something about the IPs and users who just add unsourced crap to the article.

some sections are poorly written (example Hagupit's section and the new TDs are also badly written) and some straight up lack citations because the southern asian users (and yet another example is the amount of IPs who just add crazy statements without any sources) being just too lazy to add sources and to properly even type english right FleurDeOdile 14:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to help you except to request protection. ~ AC5230 talk 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about working on the article to try and improve it rather than bitching about the IP's and users, who dont necesseraily know how to add references.Jason Rees (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waiting for the report of caused damages of Sinlaku and Hagupit. Afterwards, I will update them. Regards, 👦 01:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Haishen Still not A Category 5???

Why Super Typhoon Haishen is Still Not A Category 5 Meanwhile Jctw Already Say That Haishen is Category 5 Super typhoon??? Triassic Mapping & Science (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because JTWC is not quite as reliable a lot less reliable than the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Triassic Mapping & Science: Check the JTWC's running best track, they have Haishen's peak at 135 knots which is just below Category 5. @Chicdat: JMA doesn't use the Saffir-Simpson scale in the first place since they use 10-min sustained winds. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Triassic Mapping & Science: We only use information from government agencies and their websites. Some YouTube channels, like Firve Thirteen, say that Haishen is a C5, though their info is often unreliable, faulty, unrealistic, and unreasonable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Haishen was listed as a 155 mph category 4 by the JTWC, satellite-derived wind data indicated that the storm was a powerful category 5. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there is another discussion about this, sorry.

Haishen was not a category 5. We don't even use SSHWS in WPAC. Stop saying it was a Category 5; it was a TYPHOON. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a 155 mph Tropical cyclone is a Category 4. 🌀HurricaneGeek🌀{talk ⋅ contribs}} 13:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived JTWC warnings

Hi! The WPAC basin unfortunately has a citation problem, and that editors rarely insert citations. You've probably seen me edit the page already, inserting citations with archive links. Since the original sources are very time-sensitive and can get 404'd within a month after a system dissipates and the same URL is also used for the latest version of each warning, I always made sure to back up the warnings with the Wayback Machine in order to ensure that the proper warning is always displayed.

However, I've recently been more busy due to school, so I'm no longer able to insert citations in a timely manner. I end up missing important warnings (such as the TCFAs that kick invests into tropical depressions) which means I no longer have a verifiable source for the warnings. So around September 28 UTC, mid-Kujira, I made a script that periodically scraped the JTWC RSS feed to grab archives of their warnings.

How it works

The place where I host the archived files is at https://wiki.chlod.net/jtwc.

There's two folders, a gif folder and a text folder. The gif folder contains TCFA and TCW graphics, and the text folder contains the warning text. The script runs every 10 minutes, and if a new version is found, it will save it along with a timestamp of when it was saved. It also updates a separate file with the latest version.

The website is just a plain old Apache server with Indexes enabled. The code for the script itself is found here. A full detailed explanation of how the entire stack works is found here.

Why could I not have just used the Wayback Machine API? The Wayback Machine API is utterly hopeless for saving pages. I didn't find any other web archive with a decent API, so I just made this instead since I thought it wouldn't take me long.

If there is some small copyright violation I'm doing here that I'm unaware of (since I'm assuming content created by the US government falls under public domain), please tell me so that I can take these offline.

Using these to supply the archive-url felt wrong to me, however, since it might be a violation of WP:OR (although I am not entirely sure that it might be OR, since it's just an untouched copy of public domain text) or since this felt a bit COI-y (since it's on a personal webserver, after all.) For this reason, I wanted to ask if it were okay to link to the archived versions (or a Wayback Machine archive of them, which is essentially an archive of the archive, if you're a bit privacy-sensitive) in order to make the warnings more verifiable (since those URLs die quick). I hoped that this can help editors that also want to add references but miss the window of opportunity. Feel free to ask any additional questions that can help you get a better understanding of how it works. Thanks! --Chlod (say hi!) 10:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Now @Meow: can take at least a breath for this. Great job man! Regards, 👦 02:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great effort but I am not certain if the service will remain for decades. I still have to archive for JMA. 🐱💬 07:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no promises that this will stay up forever, but that pretty much applies to any website run by a single person. Either way, the source code is available for anyone to use, and anyone can just download a copy of whatever warning all they want or put the files on some archive service online. I'll also be keeping this website up for as long as I can - which would be a very long time unless I die soon. So it's safe to say that this will definitely withstand the test of time (as long as I update the script as well depending on changes on the JTWC's side.)
I was planning to archive JMA as well, but I can't seem to find a good page to scrape from, unless I rely on this page, which can break the archiver at any moment given some internal change. The JSON files for each system is also oddly populated despite the system having dissipated already. Unless there's some other source I'm not seeing. Chlod (say hi!) 08:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it does not archive prognostic reasonings from JTWC. 🐱💬 10:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Meow: I can start archiving those as well. Would you like me to do so? Chlod (say hi!) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For editors, reasonings may be more important than warnings. 🐱💬 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Meow: Got it. Prognostic reasonings will also be archived in the next archive (11:00 UTC) and onwards. Chlod (say hi!) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod: Can I ask for the STWA's to be archived as well, since they are a valuable source of information for systems that do not reach the JTWC's warning criteria. I would also suggest that you use the NOAA plain text links for the JMA warning bulletins Jason Rees (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Ah, sure. But... what does STWA mean and can you point me to where I can get the files (for the STWAs you mentioned and the JMA warnings)? I'm new to the meteorology field (which I only picked up as a hobby), so I'm still a bit behind on terminology. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 13:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Noul (2020)

A WikiProject Tropical cyclones hopeful JackGordean wanted to create an article for this storm and just recently, Jack started a draft for it. Is this necessary and notable enough? SMB99thx my edits 11:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, but he's a new user, SMB. You can give him a nice message about notability and then request deletion of draft, but no WP:BITEing. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, GNG? All tropical cyclones are notable as they get enough coverage to pass the GNG. What decides if the TC gets an article is impacts and/or meteorological characteristics. (Basically, an article is created if a summary on the season page would be too large for the article.) JavaHurricane 04:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, lack of notability is not a valid ground for deletion at MfD. JavaHurricane 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nangka Draft

Tropical Storm Nangka is currently moving over Hainan and could worsen historic floods over Indochina later this week. I am going to create a draft for the storm, what do you think!? Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe too soon and unnecessary (per WP:CRYSTAL), you should wait for a few days to see what happens next. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Nangka (Nika) - ITN Nomination

Tropical Storm Nangka has been nominated for the In The News section. {Vote in the nomination here} Is there going to be a main article on the storm or is it only going to be a sub in this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No images - 20W

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I support. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.DavidTheMeteorologistTalk 13:22, October 29, 2020 (UTC)

Create a draft, then. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. DavidTheMeteorologistTalk 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error

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

@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)[reply]
Thanks. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
Template:TyphoonWarningsTable
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Changed to #CD00CD and #FD0000. How does that look? Chlod (say hi!) 15:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Chlod (say hi!) 02:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really late reply - but yeah it looks good. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Typhoon Vongfong XxxCycloneXxx (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please we need to fix this issue ? XxxCycloneXxx (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Linfa split

I believe Linfa should have an article because,

  1. Linfa did $767 million and killed 137
  2. 11th wettest storms
  3. The 2020 Central Vietnam floods article was mainly created for Linfa, but then other articles got blended in and it became less and less for Linfa
  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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=993690480"