Talk:2012 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Track Problem

Hello every user, who has contributed in Typhoon tracks, but there's a big problem-Many of them are incomplete. Some, of them, which became extratropical, like Maliksi, actually crossed the IDL. Some of the tracks are even missing about a half of a qualter, of the full track. The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season article's tracks are very complete, with each section of the storm filled with words. The 2011 PTS was totally different-almost as good as the 2011 AHS article! What's one with the 2012 PTS? -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 13:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's only so much that can be done with the WPac tracks. Being that there are two agencies, there are discrepancies in tracks (some of which can be massive) which leads to issues in determining what to plot. In general, we stick with the JTWC for consistencies sake, though I personally will add the extratropical portion supplied by the JMA if the tracks line up appropriately. With that said, the JMA is very stingy about their area of responsibility and will only follow a cyclone to the International Dateline and no further. Regardless of whether or not we know a storm crossed this boundary, we are limited by the fact that no coordinates are supplied by the JMA or JTWC. Hope that helps clear things up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Depressions which were with 30 knots winds reported by the JMA should not be Merged

JMA TDs, reaching Tropial Depresssion Intensity not should be merge into the other storms section.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You sentence is totally failed... You should say ‘tropical depressions which were with 30 knots winds reported by the JMA should not be merged.’ Besides, if they are merged in the 2012 season, how about previous seasons? The section in the 2012 one looks really like a garbage can. -- Meow 14:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why they should be merged. The Japan Meteorological Agency is the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for this area of the world, and if they declare systems as tropical depressions, especially if they impact land, then they should be mentioned in the season article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Depressions with 30 knots should be merged if we can not expand them using sourced details out to a point where they can justify there own sections. As for previous seasons im happy to include other depressions sections in them and AFAIK so is User:Hurricanehink who is currently expanding the 2002 PTS with an other storms section.Jason Rees (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had this settled. Given how many TD's there are in a year, and how short-lived the JMA ones are, they should be merged, particularly if they don't affect land and weren't classified by JTWC or PAGASA. JR is correct, I'm doing it the same way for 2002 PTS. It's a great way to help cut down on article length. It's not getting rid of any info, it's just combining all of the short-lived TD's into one section. I see nothing wrong with that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well i don't see why we shouldn't put back all the 30kt TDs back to their place, like the 2011 season, and many seasons before, as it shows their track and image.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 16:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the compelling reasons to keep them merged is to cut down on space and redundancy. No depression section has a length that is 2 paragraphs, so all of those sections adds up unnecessary space (both visual and in terms of data). Furthermore, none of those TD's that were merged actually did anything, so it is quite logical to keep them together for organizational purposes - what person is really going to look for a random TD in the middle of nowhere in its own section? Lastly, the JMA doesn't do any post-analysis on the TD's, so it would be wrong to have an infobox and suggest that it is as accurate as the other (named) storms. Every other storm is properly analyzed, both in terms of wind speed, pressure, and location. Therefore, the depressions should be treated separately and lumped together. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13, you are right. It really makes sense.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hink and JR. It makes sense due to lack of content. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Hink and JR, as well as YE, it makes no sense to take up all the space with the infobox and only have one or two sentences for a very weak storm that lasted maybe only one or two days. United States Man (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why Tropical Depressions with 30kts winds reported by the JMA should be moved out of the Other Storms section

• "Japan Meteorological Agency is the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for this area of the world, and if they declare systems as tropical depressions, especially if they impact land, then they should be mentioned in the season article."-TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk)
• "Although some tropical depressions are not upgraded by the JTWC, they actually reached 30 knots 10-min maximum sustained winds according to the JMA. Thus, they should not be merged into Other storms."- Meow
• "Some of the 30kts Tropical Depressions reported by the JMA have undergone interesting events, such as: Crossing the International Date Line, being involved, or were part of a Fujiwara effect, forming in unusual areas, and making landfall."- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia must be a better place for viewers.

Reasons why they should remained as one section

• They are not analyzed after they dissipated.
• They are not counted toward any record keeping.
• Most of them are short-lived and do not have much info.
• It would be redundant to have an infobox for every one of them, considering few of them had any notable statistics to note. This is key for an article that is well over 100 kb.
• As far as encyclopediac organization goes, it is better to keep them in the same place, since all of them are weak tropical depressions.

I'd like to remind that this is not a vote, so we should be resuming discussion and rebuttals in the section above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Bopha sandbox

Since it'll likely need one soon, I made a Bopha sandbox here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Bopha. Anyone is welcome to help add to it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Hink, but it is good night to me, so i will further help the article on the start of the new month.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about a storm as serious as last year's thousand death storm, Washi. Please help build the article everybody!-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 13:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

2011 PTS

Hey, i noticed the 2012 Pacific typhoon season shows all the TDs, with the weakest being kicked to the other storms section. Why can 2012PTS be the same?-- ✯Earth100✯◕⌢◕ ^Talk _Contribs 06:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We have been through this before - we do not need full blown sections for all of the tropical depressions including JMA 30kt ones, per the consensus established a few weeks ago.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

But why can't the 2012 PTS, with much fewer storms, include all of the systems?-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is including all of the systems though, we just have opted to put ones where a full blown section is NOT required into an other storms section since it is redundant and silly to treat all of the systems the same way. Also i will be looking at merging several of the other systems in 2011 PTS to the other storms section in the next couple of days but why cant you accept the consensus made the other week and just move on? Jason Rees (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, i suggest the strong, JMA TDs to be placed ti there own section. That'll make sense.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 00:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed. It makes the most sense to have as few unneeded sections as possible. Just keep the named storms and notable other storms for the main sections, and then have a conjoined depression section. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if weak storms or JMA TDs are placed in the other storms section, why not do it like the "2006PTS Other storms"??-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 03:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It takes up too much space for all of them to get infoboxes, track maps, and images. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(a lot OT) Regarding the images, I think we should make a collage of images for all the JMA TD's that go in the other storm section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a college of their tracks would do.Jason Rees (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we shouldn't have a section for depressions at all. PTS is the largest and the most active of all and the articles get sooo long. If we just quit mentioning depressions in the article, it will look cleaner and will have the most notable information. Since most sections (of depressions) are just huge info boxes and a little text, which makes the article look rather empty. Yes, of course, we can have a conjoined section for all depressions but it would become a little hard to understand, since most readers have very little information about how tropical cyclones form and etc, etc. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but depressions that get names (or numbers) need to be included because they are technically significant. Ones that don't get names or numbers, however, should not get their own sections. That is how it is now, and I don't really see a good reason to change it. United States Man (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My aim with the other storms section is to try and keep the language simple to understand, with one or two sentences on each depression rather than a paragraph of stuff that we have problems citing because te info has been taken directly from satellite pictures, RBT's or watever.Jason Rees (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A college of all the TDs images and Tracks MUST be needed.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 12:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No a college of the TD images is not needed or wanted since we do not need it and it would just be a mess and i dont think would not be worth it. A track map of the TD's made after the season has ended would be ideal though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean an image showing all the TD's track would be better than an image showing all the TD images?-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, because a collage of all the TD pictures wouldnt work where as the track map could be done in about five minutes by someone who has the track generator.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, all of the TD images look rather similar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Similar?! you gotta be kidding me! And request Keith Edkins to make the track map. -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 05:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not kidding, they all look fairly similar. They're all weak tropical cyclones. They shouldn't get that much more attention, since they're all so weak. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Familiar? WEak?! Hink, not all of them were weak, and it is complete nonsense to put them in the other storms sections(OTS). If you are talking about SPACE, then how can you, and others explain, why do many of the previous season articles don't have a OTS, or have a OTS with inbox hurricane infos for each of the TDs?-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They are weak when compared to other tropical cyclones eg: Bopha and no it isnt nonsense to have them confined to one section since they barely make up a sentence or two. Also as for other WPAC seasons, different editors, different seasons, different standards, etc.Jason Rees (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

25W

The timings of 25W were significantly revised in BT and as a result im wondering if its worth chucking it in the Other Storms Section, since most of the details associated with 25W are no longer valid.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)