Talk:2009 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tropical Depressions

okay, so we're counting weak tropical depressions in the article now? -- グリフオーザー (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That seemed to be the General Consensus when i looked at the Main Project page earlier, though the Conversation is still open. Jason Rees (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Trim the naming list

Do we really need the JMA naming list included in its entirety? This discussion would also apply to other seasons. I don't see a need to include every name, when only one-third of them or so are used. Thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For all seasons I would suggest listing the unused names from the previous list and the next list of names. The section needs some context beyond the names that were used, but the list doesn't need to be too long. I don't like the way it was done here. Potapych (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets just get rid of the whole of the naming section bar the Current season articles Jason Rees (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TD Bising

Did TD Bising made a land fall? 61.9.6.228 (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, the PAGASA map is too small for me to be certain, I'll check elsewhere to see if it did. Cyclonebiskit 13:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it did. Cyclonebiskit 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

TD "BISING" is now over the vicinity of Dinagat Island, so it was still a TD when it made landfall. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't TD Bising be in the section "Other storms" as it was only designated as an LPA or TDis. by JMA? Weatherlover819 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A storm has not been named by JMA yet. When it does, that will happen. -- RattleMan 17:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Auring was designated as a tropical depression by the JMA, while Bising wasn't. Weatherlover819 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We've had a consensus about not using the "Other storms" section if a storm is monitored by any of the WPac agencies. If a storm is monitored by PAGASA it falls under the normal storms section. However, a storm like Kika from last year wasn't monitored by any of the WPac agencies but in post-season analysis was found to have been a tropical depression in the WPac. Since only the CPHC reported this, it is in the "Other storms" section. Cyclonebiskit 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WPAC Scale

According to the Hong Kong Observatory it has been changed this year — off course this applies for this year forwards and not backwards Tropical cyclone Maximum sustained wind speed near the centre (km/h)

Tropical Depression <63

Tropical Storm 63 – 87

Severe Tropical Storm 88 – 117

Typhoon 118 – 149

Severe Typhoon 150 – 184

Super Typhoon 185 or above

Jason Rees (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here, as it doesn't require much of a change. Yea, thanks for the heads up. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference from the old scale? --Yue ^{of the North} 16:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Severe Typhoon and Super typhoon are now offical categories.

100 knots is now a Category 5 "typhoon".. wasn't it 110 before when the JMA stated "very intense" in the advisories? - グリフオーザー (talk)

Your getting confused between basins i think (AUS and WPAC)Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

PAGASA names

These are unofficial. Should they really be mixed in with the official names? This looks like it will make it very confusing, which is why I prefer to keep them in parenthesis. Potapych (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be in "Other storms". As there haven't been any officially named storms, I don't mind keeping them where they currently are. Of course, we still have the issue whether ordinary JMA depressions should be with the main storms, but I don't think they should, since they're unnumbered, and JMA rarely, if ever, talks about them after they dissipate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

JMA TD

Man you guys are cool. I came here to tell you that the JMA has identified a TD yet you're already there. And I was waiting for it myself, mind you. Anyways, according to the 12 UTC Analysis, it's gone now, but according to shouldn't the Invest number be mentioned as well? They used to do it with Philippine storms. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there are two active Depressions according to the JMA analysis. But there are two active PAGASA Depressions as well in this article as well. Then why is there a section for a third Depression that is labeled JMA? Is it completely unrelated? I can see three lows in the JMA Analysis, though only two are labeled TD... --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

96W(Crising) JMA marks as LPA only

94W(Dante) JMA marked TD 01MAY 1200z

95W JMA marked TD 01MAY 1200z

there are three active depressions, one is not marked by the JMA. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thx for clearing things up. But shouldn't we include the Invest number in the article? --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont like using the invest numbers in the article because they are used several times a season and are not always assigned before a depression is declared to have formed. Jason Rees (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. But still, the thing looks kinda dim without any clear unified numbering system for all of them. Can't we atleast count each official and unofficial Depression ourselves or something? We can use our own numbering system. Other than that, Invests are the only data we can use, though even that isn't official. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We can not use our own numbering system and if we use Offical and unofffical for depressions it will get confusing — wat i have put in to place for this season is an infobox in the seasonal predictions so if we use that we will be able to break things down further — Also i dont think its OR if we say this was the third depression to form according to the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think that the JMA TDs should be not numbered because the JMA doesn't number the depressions. --Irdicent 23 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The JMA also doesn't list an archive for Depressions, but we keep track anyways. I think since we keep track of info, we should organize it better then and not just keep it half-baked. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As ive said previously i cant see why we cant say that the JMA Tropical Depression was 03 since it was the third tropical depression to form id like some comments from other people though Jason Rees (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jason Rees, because it was the third depression to be mentioned by the JMA. See my archive of JMA depressions. Weatherlover819 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good enough. But I wonder about data from other agencies. We can always use the JTWC's -W suffixes, but what about PAGASA? Should we include a number, give it its own section, make a simple list or just ignore it and mention it in storm details? Maybe in every table, we should give all numbers, for example. JMA Depression, JMA Storm, JTWC system, and PAGASA system. Other agencies aren't notable enough, so we could do without them. What do you guys think? --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think PAGASAs naming is enough for this article — if their happens to be a depression that one of the NMHSS montior but the JMA or JTWC or PAGASA dont then we should include it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. But I still think we should mention the number in the storm info paragraph, though. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are carefull about the wording i dont see why not Jason Rees (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kujira landfall

I think it did to Philippines 3 times. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Its possible have you got any rough timings for the landfalls? if so please post below. Also this afternoon i set up a [Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical Storm Kujira (2009) project sandbox] on Kujira which anyone is welcome to edit and build up. Jason Rees (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know I am working on it. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 04:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok just dont use poor fair and good as they are unoffical benchmarks and are screwed up for Kujira Jason Rees (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorsogon and Catanduanes were mentioned in the PAGASA advisories for TD Dante being in the vicinity of at those times. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kujira's dissipation???

I have seen that JMA and JTWC are still issuing advisories on STS Kujira. Both report further that the storm is only becoming extratropical. How can one put up that Kujira dissipated even though JMA reports it as a Severe Tropical Storm and JTWC a typhoon??? Please show your references... -Pika ten10 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

JTWC stated that Kujira was beginning its transition to extratropical, JMA is continuing to weaken the system. That is all I've seen from the RSMC/JTWC. - グリフオーザー (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Report it like this: Kujira is already weakening as it undergoes extratropical transition and is now in an area of strong wind shear. OK??? -Pika ten10 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine by me — their should be articles for both Typhoons by this time next week Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The track supposed to be longer, as Kujira has been tracked as far as east of Kamchatka Peninsula and moist of it reached the west coast. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 12:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The track map generator doesn't show the ET positions for some reason. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the Track can only take up a certain amount of space (ie if you took out some of the first few points you would get the ET part) :P Jason Rees (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one?

Look at [1], I wonder why the death and the damage gone up by directly 10 for direct, indirect and missing. Is it a vandalism? Which one is right, the old one or the current one? HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JMA TD 05

As its a regeneration and not a new depression a new number is not required. Jason Rees (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

nope still the same invest from JTWC as well -- グリフオーザー (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem

Gary Padgett emailed me yesterday and it appears that we had a serious dissagreement between warning centers in the last couple of days. The JMA WWJP25 warnings from 16/06 18z onwards clearly give the impression that Linfa is not TD 05. However as evidenced by the ABWP10 warnings and the invest number (98W) the JTWC report thats its the same system, however they have now relocated the center to within a couple of degrees of what the JMA report it as. So i suggest we give the JMA TD 05 a seperate section and It and Linfa as two seperate systems as that seems to be whats right. Jason Rees (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The TD east of the Philippines on 14 June is not Linfa but Linfa IS TD04. JMA does not assign a number until they believe that the max winds have reached 30kts, ie. when they start to issue warnings. Therefore, the TD east of the Philippines on 14 June will end up having no identifier. JMA best track of Linfa should probably start in the South China Sea.129.94.223.121 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (Sorry for incorrect use of pronoun yesterday)

Umm Linfa is TD 5 unless you have a source. Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Feria/Nangka

Please do not rush any sort of article out for it — I will be working on one in sandbox and will publish when its ready Jason Rees (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Webciting advisories/bulletins has died on me.. again - グリフオーザー (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Update it seems to be on the verge of coming back though none of the links work yet.

TD 05W

This should be an interesting depression to follow as if the JTWCs Track comes more south — we could have a basin crosser on our hands bearing in mind that the JTWC have already shifted their track once more to the south, Jason Rees (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Track Problem

At first I just thought it was my computer, but then when I tried to access the Soudelor (Gorio) track in Full Res., I keep getting a 404 not found error. Any ideas on what might be wrong? Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight modification to the logs

Hi Guys

Can we start putting down when JMA and JTWC peak intensity is achieved in the logs please. Also can we restart archiving the Guam Warnings when issued. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I am archiving a few of their advisories for Morakot - グリフオーザー (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Something rather worrying

Ive noticed with the last few depressions we are closing down the sections before the JMA has issued their final advisory. Please dont do this as otherwise its ORIGINAL RESEARCH. When the JMA stop issuing full advisories they either downgrade it to a low which means its Extra tropical and they stop advisories however when they downgrade to a Tropical Depression they include it in their WWJP25 Advisories for a few forecasting rounds before downgrading it. If you are confused look at this talkpage or ask me, VOFFA, Rattleman or Cyclonebiskit we are ussually around and upto date on the depressions. Jason Rees (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

I know that we are using a timeline section, but I feel that we should get rid of it (in the season article) until post-storm or season. The reason is that the updates are not regular and the grammar is poor. For example, Morakot prepares to have a landfall on Taiwan, how can a storm prepare to have a landfall. Can't we just write the timeline for a storm after it dissipates in order to insure higher quality? (Sorry if I sound like I am whining) --Anhamirak 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep them in their for now but I have been copyediting all off the hooks before they go on to the main timeline page and known about this problem for a while.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Acctully Anhamirak ive changed my mind and have removed the timeline section for now and will update the timeline page when i get chance.

11W

I was unable to archive the beginning advisory of 11W from Tiyan, Guam NWS but I provided the link if any is able to webcite before the next advisory. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wierd i cant either — I will track the warning down on WX-Trop in a bit Jason Rees (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WEBCITE is not working so ive chucked the latest ones in a Sandbox Jason Rees (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

remnants of Maka being absorbed by frontal system?

I can't see any evidence of a front near the remnants of Maka. The remnants are now near 16N and I seriously doubt if a front can reach that south in summer months.129.94.223.122 (talk)

Someone has added a lot of false info to this article which i am trying to correct.Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Offcentered images

There are a few offcentered images, and could anyone upload 250m version images instead of 2km/1km? HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 17:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The name of TD 20 is wrong, as the circulation is still offshore.

numbering of JMA TD

Unless someone can justify the numbers by providing an official source with that number directly associated with the TD, I'll treat all those numbers to be false information. WWJP25 has no number directly associated with a TD.Typhoon2009 (talk)

It was archived, see archive 1 or 2 --Anhamirak 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't archived anywhere.[2]Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't change these numbers without Consensus. This may be considered vandalism. Thank you. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material is not vandalism. Up to this stage, you have not provide a proof that Auring is officiallly known as TD01, etc. Unless you can prove it, it's unencyclopediac.Typhoon2009 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Acctully it is vandalism because we have a consensus to use the numbers regardless of how well defined it is — Please Stop Spamming.Jason Rees (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Warning — These numbers are correct and have been assigned using a consenssus if you do not like the consensus that was formed then Wikipedia might not the place for you. Also the numbers and can be verifed using the WWJP25s and are backed up by other sources.Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? This is clearly under dispute. The numbers cannot be verified using WWJP25. I've asked you many times. Can you present a source showing that Auring is designated as Tropical Depression 01? Clearly you can't. If you keep not supporting your designation using a valid source, Wikipedia might not the place for you. I have at least show you that best tracks and SAREPs showing that some designation may be associated to some Tropical Depressions but you can't show any. Typhoon2009 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was never really well defined, so I am putting it on the WT:WPTC page. --Anhamirak 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus among other editors should be obtained first. Edit warring is no good. -- RattleMan 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, there is no consensus among editors so far. Also, adding the dubious tags clearly encourage other editors to make comments.Typhoon2009 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the "No original research" page. "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". Clearly, WWJP25s neither directly nor indirectly, implicitly nor explicitly support that such a designation is associated.Typhoon2009 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not orignal research — we can verify that is the first depression of the year etc which is how they are getting numbered under a ROUTINE CALCULATION. and acctully there is enoguh of a consensus to use the numbers regardless of how you define a consesnsus.Jason Rees (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It IS original research!!! You CANNOT verify that Auring is designated as Tropical Depression 01.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In [3], there are two editors for and two editors against the original research. Are you telling me this is what you called enough of a consensus?Typhoon2009 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can verify that Auring was the first tropical depression of the season and thus gets tropical depression 1 without commiting orignal research as the rules of WP say its fine to number something number 1 if you can verify it was the first thing ie (Tropical Depression). Also HurricaneKiller has commented on it here which brings it to 3-2 on my side allthough even if you dont like it. Also the points raised in this conversation are still valid ones.Jason Rees (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

STS Linfa

STS Linfa clearly originates as a TD in South China Sea according to JMA. Please DO not mix that with the precedent TD east of the Philippines!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesnt It is the same system all the way through. Jason Rees (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NO. JMA considered them separate.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No they didntJason Rees (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

They did consider them separate. JMA best track shows TD formation on June 17. The lifespan of Linfa starts from June 17, not June 14.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The JMA did not release the best track yet! --Anhamirak 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

JMA has released the best track. They typically upload the best track track map in a couple of days after the release of AXPQ20. While one have saved the text version, the track map version has been released online for months.Typhoon2009 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood, the JMA released the Linfa and Nangka BTs within a few minutes of each other, Nangka overwriting Linfa before anyone could save it. The same thing happened last year, with Mekkhala overwriting Jangmi. -- RattleMan 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Choi-Wan and Koppu

Please update the information for Choi-Wan. JTWC now declares it to be a typhoon.

Also, please add the information that the HKO has declared Koppu as a typhoon. ~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk

We can't the article is protected due to the dispute above until September 16, only administrator can edit now and the only one in WP:WPTC is Semi-active --Anhamirak 10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A note: The HKO are not good enough for Koppu to be declared a Typhoon.Jason Rees (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

TCNA CODING

1. Kujira (0901) 01
2. Noname 02
3. Chan-hom (0902) 03
4. Linfa (0903) 04
5. Nangka (0904) 05
6. Soudelor (0905) 06
7. Noname (PAGASA Huaning) 07
8. Molave (0906) 08
9. Goni (0907) 09
10. Morakot (0908) 10
11. Etau (0909) 11
12. Noname "Maka" 12
13. Vamco (0910) 13
14. Krovanh (0911) 14
15. Noname "02C" 15
16. Dujuan (0912) (PAGASA Labuyo) 16
17. Mujigae (0913) 17
18. Choi-wan (0914) 18
19. Koppu (0915) 19
20. Ketsana (0916) (PAGASA "Ondoy") 20
21. Parma (T0917) 21
22. Melor (T0918) 22
23. Nepartak (T0919) 23
24. Lupit (T0920) 24

numbering of JMA TD

It seems that someone likes to put ongoing dispute into the archive.

It was over no one had posted in a reasonable amount of time so it got archived and please stop spamming.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone claims that he can verify that Auring was the first tropical depression of the season and thus gets tropical depression 1. Unfortunately, there is not an official rule claiming that the first tropical depression of the season gets tropical depression 1. On the other hand, JMA tells you how numbers are assigned to tropical depression in their best track format.

FOR THE FINAL TIME The SAREP Numbers are not VERIFABLE unlike the numbers that we have assigned.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers you have assigned are not VERIFIABLE. It's JMA's official practice not to number Tropical Depressions<30kt so ALL YOUR NUMBERS ARE JUST FALSE INFORMATION.Typhoon2009 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Even outside Western Pacific, the first tropical depression doesn't have to be tropical depression 1. What was the first tropical depression in Atlantic in 2007? (it's 02) What was the first tropical depression in SW Indian Ocean in 2008/2009 season? (it's 02) What was the 19th tropical low in Australian Region in 2008/2009 season? (this was disputed in [4] and that's not 19U) He can at most verify that Auring is the first tropical depression BUT he can't verify that Auring is tropical depression 01. Typhoon2009 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In previous discussion, someone asks "why we cant say that the JMA Tropical Depression was 03 since it was the third tropical depression to form"? The simple reason is that JMA does not number tropical depressions in this way. It's just like in Australian Region in 2008/2009 season, you can't force what you think is the 19th tropical low to be 19U when BoM is not numbering it as such.Typhoon2009 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Australia was that we had a Jakarta low that i presume got assigned some other designation by Jakarta. Also the numbers in australia are backed up by BOM and GP. Also since we have a consensus to use the numbers that are easily verified, we will be sticking with them.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by GP? By the way, you can backup the numbers for systems requiring technical bulletins from BoM. This is a similar situation as SAREPs. Each year, there are numbered tropical lows not requiring even 1 technical bulletin from BoM while there are numbered tropical depressions not requiring even 1 SAREP.Typhoon2009 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Auring was the first JMA mention of a tropical depression though it never made it to intiated advisories for it to be numbered as "Depression 1". The tropical depression that did not get officially number should still be included to since some did cause news events when they made landfall. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Including it DOESN'T mean that you can designate it as Tropical Depression 01, especially when JMA has its own way to assign numbers.Typhoon2009 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

those numbers arent offical or verifable where as the system we are using is verfiable though.

Also we have to monitor all depressions in this basin and it would get stupid if we enforced the Sarep numberingJason Rees (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by "it would get stupid if we enforced the Sarep numbering"? If a system is not numbered officially, then not having a number is certainly not stupid. Suppose we on 1st January, there is an extratropical low off US East Coast. Do you refer it as extratropical low 1 or the extratropical low off US East Coast? Do you mean that using the second way is stupid? A severe weather event doesn't have to be numbered if the official agency chooses not to. Do we have numbers for extratropical lows? No. Do we have numbers for earthquakes? No.Typhoon2009 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a convention concerning naming of tornado events[5], which is also a type of severe weather event. We make take it as a reference. Obviously, the numbers designated by you are commonly accepted, not used by NOAA or an official weather agency. Then the next choice is probably date or location. Indeed, date or location has been used to distinguish TDs by several agencies including HKO, CWB. Even JMA refers to TDs by date or location in local weather forecast. You have to monitor all depressions is not a valid reason to assign unofficial unverifiable numbers.129.94.223.113 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not adding "official" designations of our own, we are just stating that it was the first (Auring) tropical depression of the season reconized by the JMA --Anhamirak 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Depression k doesn't mean that it's the k-th tropical depression. Was Tropical Depression Two in Atlantic in 2007 the second Tropical Depression? No, it wasn't. Was Tropical Depression 02 in SW Indian Ocean in 2008/2009 season the second Tropical Depression? No, it wasn't. Also, once you use it as a subtitle, you are adding designations of your own. If you want to tell others that a certain extratropical low is the k-th reconized by JMA, do you put extratropical low k as the subtitle? Typhoon2009 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see that those are not official designations, why put it there? The first extratropical low reconized by JMA is referred as "extratropical low", not "extratropical low 01". JMA doesn't bother to number extratropical lows, just like they don't bother to number TD<30kt. Hence these systems are not numbered. You don't have to add one number. When you need to distinguish, date and location will do.Typhoon2009 (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No they are not false infomation, and are verifiable using the WWJP25 by counting the depressions up which is allowed under WP rules. The SAREP numbers can not be verifed unless we archive the bulletin above or use the BT which isnt released on depressions so thats useless for this seasons numbers. Also the Australian TL numbers for last year can be verified using Gary Padgetts monthly summuaries and or the techincal bulletins by bom which we would have to archive anyway so theres no argument there. Also the TCNA coding isnt assigned to depressions untill they are expected to become a TS which is no good to us as not evrey TD>30kts is expected to become a TS and as said previously we dont want the article to be monotmous which i fear it would be if we resorted to only using the TCNA coding. Also there is a big difference between Tornados naming conventions and TC naming conventions as tornados do not affect more than 1 country before dissipating unless its on a border like England and Scotland where as TCs generaly do so that rules out place names. Do i feel that we should keep the system we have in place now since its verifiable unlike the SAREP numbers that can not be verifed and we ar just stating that it was the first (Auring) tropical depression of the season reconized by the JMA which makes it a verifiable system.Jason Rees (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not false infomation because JMA never assigns these numbers to TD<30kt. You don't want the article to be motonomous is not a valid reason to add false information. An encyclopedia need not avoid monotmous information if that's the reality. There are thousands of unumbered natural disasters a year, including flooding, heatwave, cold surge, snowstorm, tornado, thunderstorm, earthquake, bushfire. You may find these monotmous but they are real. You are not stating that it was the first (Auring) tropical depression of the season. Instead, you are misleading readers that JMA assigns the number 01 to it, WHICH IS FALSE!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As you remove the dispute tag, it means that you have no intention to resolve the dispute by discussion. So I will remove the FALSE INFROMATION directly.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Acctully their not false info and if you remove them again you will be blocked. Also TCs are numbered per WP Rules if you dont like it then leave — it is verfiable info unlike your system. Also we have a consensus in place to use the current system which has formed throughout this disscusion and previous ones so if you dont like it i suggest you stop spamming and leave.Jason Rees (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are FALSE info because JMA never assigns those numbers and you can't prove otherwise. TCs are to be numbered by official agency. WP is not an official agency. I'm not leaving. The one to leave should be YOU!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We are numbering them per a consensus if you dont like it then leave. Jason Rees (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers in place are not based on consensus. Up to now, there are three editors having made comments against those numbers. On the other hand, apart from you, only Darren23 is in favour of the system designed by you. No information is better than false information. The one to leave should be YOU!!! You shouldn't design your own system because that's original research!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not orignal research and is a routine calcualtion. Maybe you should read up on what OR is because as we have designed a system that is easily verifable. Also Anhamirak and Hurricanespins comments seems to be in support of the system also we have a consesnsus form before which backs us up.Jason Rees (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not routine calculation. JMA never assigns those numbers. It's a false designation. It's the same as saying that "Barack Obama is US president 44", which is a FALSE statement.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not it is a false statement it is a routine calculation. read up on facts.Jason Rees (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that JMA never assigns those numbers added by you.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fact is that the JMA never assigns numbers offically to depressions full stop. so we have to routine calculate them based on the WWJP25s whcih is allowed by WP rules.Jason Rees (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that JMA never assigns those numbers added by you but they assigns another set of numbers!!! Even if JMA never assigns a number, YOU CAN'T ASSIGN A NUMBER ON YOUR OWN!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actully we can as they do not assign numbers to depressions offically.Jason Rees (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU CAN'T!!! THAT'S FALSE INFORMATION!!! Also, JMA do assign numbers that are different from yours to some depressions!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The SAREP numbers are unverifiable and not offical simple so we are allowed to routinly calculate the numbers.Jason Rees (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your numbers are unverifiable and completely unofficial!!! That's simply FALSE INFORMATION!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What you add to the article is not a calculation, it's a designation!!! You can't call Obama "US President 44" by calculation.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can because its verifiable infomation and no its not a designation because we do not pretend that our numbers are offical, we are just saying that this was the first system to form and gets TD 01 which is allowed by the rules of WP, because i can back it up.Jason Rees (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The first system to form gets TD 01 is clearly not allowed when the official agency have another set of rules to assign number. Can you call Obama "US President 44" by the rules of WP? I seriously doubt!!!

You are clearly pretending that your numbers are official as they have the prefix JMA and are used as subtitles!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No we are not pretending they are offical, they have the prefix JMA to indicate that was a JMA depression and the suffix number to say when it formed which is verified via the WWJP2s regardless of weather you like it or not. Also under the rules of WP you can say Obama is the "US President 44" because it is a verifiable fact as are the numbers which we are not pretending are offical. The SAREP numbers are not offical either, since they are not used in all of their bulletins. Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that such a number is not assigned. Auring is not "Tropical Depression 01" in JMA's record, it is just "Tropical Depression". That's it!!! Using your logic, designations xxU in Australian Region are neither official, since they are used in technical summaries only and not used in all of their bulletins. Also, I can't find a WP rule allowing you to call Obama "US President 44". Unofficial numbers should not exist for any form of severe weather events, including tropical depressions, extratropical lows, tornadoes, thunderstorms, rainstorms, flooding, heat waves, etc. Typhoon2009 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can show that Auring is known as "Tropical Depression 01" by JMA, "JMA Tropical Depression 01" IS FALSE INFORMATION!!!Typhoon2009 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not false infomation because i can back myself up that the depression is the first JMA depression of the year. The fact remains though that your system is unverifable as the JMA do not issue BT on depressions, however the system in place at the minute is verifable by going through the WWJP25s and routinely counting all the depressions up. As i said no one is treating it as an offical designation, but saying that is the first system that has formed this season whcih is a verifable fact.Jason Rees (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are misleading readers that it is an official designation. Unless you can show that Auring is known as "Tropical Depression 01" by JMA, it's not "JMA Tropical Depression 01".Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing you have to verify is that Auring is known as "Tropical Depression 01" by JMA, not whether Auring is the first tropical depression.Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No we are not misguiding our readers and we can verify that its the first TD of the season and thus gets named as TD 01 under WP rules.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the thing you have to verify is that Auring is known as "Tropical Depression 01" by JMA, not whether Auring is the first tropical depression. Otherwise, the number 01 is unverfiable. For Maka, JMA has clearly assigned the number 15 to it so your number is not just unverifiable but clearly FALSE. Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Remind you again that something is the first TD of the season doesn't mean that it is TD 01 unless an official agency designate it as such. If an official agency does not designate it as such, then it's an unnumbered severe weather event.Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not. i cna verify that Auring was the first depresison of the seasn and thus gets the first number of the season. Maka maywell of been designated as TD 15 but those numbers are unverifable since the JMA do not issue BT on dperessions. Hwoever my numbers are verfiable as i can prove it was the first TD of the season and thus gets the number 1 under the routine calcuation allowed by the rules of WP because the JMA do not offically use a system to number depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your numbers are unverifiable because JMA never links the nubmer 18 to Maka in any of its product. It links the number 15 to Maka in one of its product. Even if you can prove it was the first TD of the season, you can't prove that it is known as "Tropical Depression 01" by JMA. You are not doing routine calculation. You are adding in an unofficial designation.Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No im not adding in an unoffical designation at all — these arent even designations, the thing we are doing is adding in verifbale infomation that Auring was the first depression to form which is allowed under WP Rules.Jason Rees (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"JMA Tropical Depression 01" is a designation or at least it looks like a designation to readers. If it's not designation, why should it appear in the subtitle? If an official agency does not designate a number to a severe weather event, then it's an unnumbered severe weather event and should not get a number as suffix. This is true for all forms of severe weather events. Typhoon2009 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It should appear in the title because it is a lot better to have a verifiable number in the title then have it as JMA TROPICAL DEPRESSION, JMA TROPICAL DEPRESSION etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a verifiable number because it is never known by JMA as such. No information is better than false information. Therefore, no number is better than a number that is never assigned by JMA. Also, JMA is not the only agency that does not issue best tracks for TD. BoM and RSMC Nadi also does not. Using your logic, then all designations xxU and xxF would be unofficial. Typhoon2009 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon2009, few if any people had a problem with the numbering of JMA TD's before you brought it up. What is your problem with this?!. Just let it go. Drop the argument with everyone else who numbers JMA TD's. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I brought it up, Irdicent has commented that "JMA TDs should be not numbered because the JMA doesn't number the depressions." Last month, HkCaGu has also commented that "Making our own number is stupid. Why not just say "JMA TD of September 11-13"?" What is the problem with this? I've said many times, those numbers have never been assigned and an encyclopedia should not give an impression to readers that those numbers were assigned.Typhoon2009 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "JMA TD 01" we can call it "1st JMA TD" that'll be better. –Howard the Duck 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It tells reader that it is known as TD by JMA, not known as TD 01 by JMA. It sounds good for the time being, before the Typhoon Committee meeting. The dates of formation will be finalized in the meeting for TS before October but not TD. That may induce some conflicts with operational data.Typhoon2009 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "01" is part of the name. It's a "modifier." –Howard the Duck 04:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the list of grammatical modifiers given in that article, none of it resembles "Tropical Depression 01". Also, in another part of the world, NHC has been using numbers as a designation and hence this article will have confused readers to consider it as a designation. By the way, there are also examples that "Tropical Depression 01" is not the first tropical depression in other parts of the world. Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an official agency and cannot decide the threshold to assign a number. There are different threshold in different parts of the world. For instance, NHC numbers a system if it's a tropical or subtropical depression. JMA assigns serial number ID for TD=30kt. RSMC La Reunion numbers Zone of Disturbed Weather. Taiwan numbers a system if it's a tropical storm. Wikipedia is not the place to choose a threshold that the official agency doesn't use and assign numbers that the official agency doesn't assign. Choosing TD<30kt as a threshold, without any support from JMA, is already an original reaearch. Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is not a rule saying that the first must get the number 01. The first Tropical Storm doesn't have to be called "Tropical Storm 01". The first hurricane doesn't have to be called "Hurricane 01". The first earthquake doesn't have to be called "Earthquake 01". The first extratropical low doesn't have to be called "extratropical low 01". Similarly, the first Tropical Depression doesn't have to be called "Tropical Depression 01" unless an official agency decides to do so.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick true or false exercise:

• Bill is the first Atlantic hurricane in 2009. True or false?
• Bill is Atlantic Hurricane 01 in 2009. True or false?

If you ask me, I think the first is true but the second is false.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers are modifiers. In fact, in the order of how modifiers will appear in a sentence, the numbers are the ones that should appear first. So in this case, I'm more in favor of "1st JMA TD" than "JMA TD 01". –Howard the Duck 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Typhoon2009. If the JMA (or any other official agency) does not officially place the numbers, we also should not do anything that would give the impression that it is somehow official -- and the way it has been done suggests some form of officiality. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not often someone gets me to log in, but I might as well log in for my opinions: the numbers may not be official, but isn't it more confusing than anything to say "tropical depression" and then "tropical depression". Why not "First JMA Tropical Depression" and then "Second JMA Tropical Depression"? It's not an official designation and a bit complicated, but it indicates chronological order and avoids the issue of the numbers. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "First JMA Tropical Depression" seems a good compromise. "Unnamed Tropical Depression observed by the JMA between July 4 to 17, 2009 at the Philippine Sea then hit Guam" is too lengthy as a section title. –Howard the Duck 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I will vote for "First" versus "01", but I still want to further my arguments. No matter whether TDs are TCs by JMA or RSMC or whatever standards, TDs (at least the first two kinds, <30, 30-not-intensifying, but especially the first kind) are operationally not TCs for JMA. They upgrade and downgrade casually without official notification.

And how can the SAREP number, in an RSMC product, be less official than whatever appears in a JMA (non-RSMC) product (WWJP25)? HkCaGu (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I side with Typhoon.

I've just did some searching and found some related information. In the "REPORT OF THE FORTIETH SESSION OF TYPHOON COMMITTEE", one of the recommendations from WGM parallel session was "to agree that there is no need for naming or numbering tropical depression to avoid the confusion while it is necessary to label expected tropical depression by using RSMC existing system among the Members with the next 3 years or beyond, and to agree each member, depending on their respective circumstances, may develop its own tropical depression numbering or naming system to suit its own operation use including the improvement preparedness for developing tropical depressions."[6] Coincidentally, in the year following this report, China ceased to number TD in public weather bulletins. I wonder what is exactly meant by RSMC existing system among the Members as it wasn't elaborated any further. The 3-year period will end in 2010 and I wonder if there will be another review. Typhoon2009 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Are you suggesting we go by the following section names?

===Tropical depression observed by JMA named by PAGASA as Auring observed from January 3 to 6===

===Unnamed tropical depression observed by JMA from May 1 to 4 in the Western Pacific Ocean===

===Unnamed tropical depression observed by JMA from August 20 to 21 in the Western Pacific Ocean===

===Unnamed tropical depression observed by JMA from August 25 to 26 in the Western Pacific Ocean===

===Tropical depression named by JMA as "02C" observed from August 29 to September 1 in the Western Pacific Ocean===

===Unnamed tropical depression observed by JMA from September 3 to 9 in the South China Sea that hit Vietnam===

... etc? –Howard the Duck 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are obviously excessive. If relevant descriptions are required, the list of criteria regarding the naming of Tornado is a good reference. Go for month/dates first then add location only when necessary. The probability of two TD both forming and dissipating on the same day is really low. India[7] and Hong Kong[8] traditionally refer to unnamed TCs by dates and by far I haven't seen such a conincidence. "First JMA TD" is certainly a better choice than "JMA TD 01" but I am still curious what the RSMC existing system mentioned in the report means. I will appreciate if someone can find more information about this system.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 2

From now on, please use this section instead of the top one. Also, I agree with "Howard the Duck" for numbering tropical depressions, like "1st JMA TD" or similar numberings. HurricaneRulzMath (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to at Parma but I can't because this dispute. No people think you are idiots for not listing parma like you should. - Synthetical connections logged out. 68.3.160.135 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC) So now, I finally have something constructive, and I can't do it! I can see why alot of people don't like wikipedia anymore. Why can I only make edits that no one wants!?>!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!??!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!!?!!? You're having a dispute over personal designation? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also saw the statement in the 40th session report. I understood they agreed on that the individual meteorological services should stop using their own numbering and naming system and use that of the RSMC. It implies that PAGASA should stop name TDs and storms within their area of responsability. I don't know if they also mean the JTWC whose warnings are widely respected but actually there is almost no season in which 07W corresponds to xx07. That's confusing as well.

However, the information the RSMC is providing is inssufficient for writing the season article on the fly, i.e. during the season, so we need the JTWC warnings. The result is seen in storm descriptions like On 0900 UTC the JTWC upgraded 08W to a category 1 equivalent typhoon while the JMA kept it as severe tropical Storm Blabla. Six hours later the JMA upraded Blabla to a typhoon while the JTWC issued its last warning since the cyclone was almost over land. And no information wether there was rapid intensifying or wind shear. The overall quality level of the WPac article is the worst of all bassins and that's nothing new in this year only. (In fact, also the web interface of the JMA is the worst of all RSMCs). --Matthiasb (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

JMA TDs aren't really notable, and I'm starting to think that having an entire section for each one is overkill. I suggest a single chart listing all the JMA TDs, with formation/dissipation dates and other necessary stats. That also solves the naming dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem is though TD 20, TD 01, TD 18, TD 08, TD 15 (as they stand now) are all rather notable for their own reasons — All were JMA depressions and under youre (hinks) proposal would not be worthy of sections. I am now thinking about just dropping any numbering full stop from the article but keeping the sections.Jason Rees (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the tropical depressions are notable for heavy rainfall rather than strong winds. Indeed, a similar level of damage can be caused by a rainstorms and thunderstorms. In eastern Pacific and Atlantic, there are many similar weak but rain-intensive systems mentioned in NHC Tropical Weather Outlook. Heavy rain and mud slide are always said to be major threat. A summary of all TD is fine although I'm not against a particular section if the damage is significant enough. In the current article, it seems to me that the synoptic history is too detailed while the description of damage is not enough. For example, there is a sentence "JTWC issued a warning that the potential for the development of a significant tropical cyclone within the next 24 hours was "poor"." I wonder if it is worth noting. 218.215.12.140 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question for Julian: What is the difference in notability between the JMA TDs and the zones of disturbed weather by MF or the FMS tropical disturbances? And why do NHC TDs qualify higher, if they do? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tropical_Storm_Ketsana

I created this stub article. Record-breaking rainfall in a major metropolis definitely makes this storm notable. --seav (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

JMA TD 04

someone write A JMA TROPICAL DEPRESSION 24 ???

Note

Since this article has been fully-protected due to the recent edit warring, most users will not be able to proceed with the standard updating. Please post edit requests here and I will try to take care of them ASAP. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you take off PAG-ASA's storm warning signals? They're all been lifted. –Howard the Duck 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Death toll now 106. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a new TD. -IrfanFaiz 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That TD became TS Parma... -IrfanFaiz 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ive got my eyes on five TDs since Choi-wan dissipated, all will be updated in due course, though Parma will probbably get an article soon.Jason Rees (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

New map for the effects of typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines

Please replace the Philippine locations under state of calamity caused by Tropical Storm Ketsana.PNG with Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines.svg with the descriptions

  State of Calamity declared

  State of Calamity declared together with confirmed deaths

New "typhoon"

PAG-ASA eyed a possible typhoon in the Pacific which were days after the Ketsana. If it enters the Philippines, they will call it Pepeng. [9]--JL 09 _^q?c 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ya still 24-36 hours until that happens - グリフオーザー (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

JMA TD 25 ... FORMED ????

Article Size

If the article is too large, maybe someone could start a "List of storms in the 2009 Pacific typhoon season" article. That is, if the article is too big. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, sentences are repeated for every storm. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article size is fine. If the WP article size didnt show up by the end of the season i would of been worried.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Melor image

[10] HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

TS Goni

The section on the aftermath in the Philippines must be updated, see http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/retrieveattachments?openagent&shortid=MYAI-7URAJB&file=Full_Report.pdf. Greeting. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article partly outdated

Some parts of the article (mainly the section on TS Nangka, TY Morakot, TS Etau, TD Maka, STS Dujuan, TY Koppu and TY Ketsana) are outdated or the later developments of the storm is missing. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several bits that need updating/rewriting. I am working to do this but its taking its time. Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon Melor

Melor needs its own page, since it has already affected the Marianas to some extent and is currently forecast to brush by Japan. Ykerzner (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep quite agree. We are working on it in sandbox at the minute. Jason Rees (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed. also outdated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8296121.stmPB666 ^yap 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was away today so i couldnt get the article sorted and out straight after it had made landfall however i should be able to get it out of sandbox by the time it is downgraded by JMA to xtratropical or at the very latest the weekend.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Me and JC were talking on IRC about the season thus far and after the effects of Morakot, Parma, Ketsana we think its worth upgrading the season article to Top importance. Comments would be welcome on this proposal.Jason Rees (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pepeng track

Why hasn't anybody updated Pepeng's track??? - That storm has already made 2 landfalls while still apparently staying here in the Philippines for already 10 days. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was last updated on October 7th, im sure once the guy who does them gets chance he will update it since he likes the system.Jason Rees (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nepartak and Lupit Pics

Is anyone ever going to post pics of Nepartak and Lupit? Lupit's a typhoon right now, and Nepartak dissipated a couple days ago. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PAGASA Names

After emailing PAGASA last night i found out that Ondoy and Pepeng have been offically retired due to damage. Jason Rees (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2