Jump to content

Talk:2014 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Handle systems with one LPA stage between two TD stages

We did not split a tropical cyclone which contains one LPA stage between two TD stages before 2014. First, we need to be aware of the JMA’s style— they just do not include the LPA stage in the best track data, but it does not mean that they do not recognise. Lingling and Nakri directly formed from the LPA that weakened from the TD, as well as a TD directly formed from the LPA that weakened from Peipah. Moreover, other agencies recognised that they are just three systems not six. If we keep splitting the kind of those systems, we will face a big trouble in the future, when a TD weakened into a LPA then developed into a TD then weakened into a LPA again but developed into a TD again... -- Meow 05:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We have no sources directly connecting the systems except for Nakri and the precursor TD (via the JTWC). Plain and simple. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just saying that I am only a helper. I only fix seasonal timelines. Please do not tell me that this is my fault or I am helping @User:Meow. And Question: Didn't Meow (I think) or someone said that we follow the best track data for dates? And it says that Lingling formed on 15/01 and Peipah dissipated on 08/04 so it means that these 2 storms have been separated in to 2 storms from the best track data of JMA and/or NOAA, if I am correct?. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Email them and find out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Why did you ask for direct connections? Lingling and Peipah’s LPA stage between the two TDs neither dissipated nor significantly relocated, as well as the U.S. Armed Force (including the JTWC) did not issue a new temporary number. PAGASA also considered the LPA (including the first TD) and Agaton as the same system, so there have been many direct connections. The JMA treats tropical cyclone very differently from the NOAA, as the JMA does not including the LPA stage. We should refer to the best track data first. However, if there is another stage before or after the LPA stage, we should take a look at RSMC’s archives. -- Meow 10:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We can not make any connections between any system without having a source that connects them that is clear to an average reader and citeable. As i stated last week on Meows talkpage, for LingLing we have Steve Youngs Tracking data who treats them as one whole system, and would be better to cite than the JMA Marine warnings. It is worth noting here and now though that the JMA BT's the whole of a systems life, but does not publicly issue any BT on the LPA or any precursor depression stages that i have seen.Jason Rees (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the source and I have added it. Unlike NOAA or other agencies, the JMA only includes “one continuous cyclone stage” in their best track data, yet a low-pressure area is not a cyclone. -- Meow 15:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it matters if any reputable agency/source considers them the same storm. For Tropical Storm Vongfong (2002), JMA only considered the latter portion of the storm, but JTWC and GP both considered it the same general storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Kammuri

On the WMO's page shows the name Kammuri, but rewrited as Kanmuri. Is this the official name or is a misspelling?. -- Byralaal - (talk!) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kanmuri is significantly a misspelling. -- Meow 09:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As of

For the current information, it should present the analysis time instead of releasing time. If the JTWC analyses a storm at 12:00 UTC and releases information at 15:00 UTC, we should use 12:00 UTC. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not feature future contents. -- Meow 15:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Same here with 178.202.135.29. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Vongfong (2014)

This article is not keeping up with developments. I note this because the people who work on WP articles on these storms do a ridiculously great job, so this seems like an anomaly. the box is good, the article portion is behind, and i think it should have an article now. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mercurywoodrose: Vongfong should definitely have a storm article. Although it is too early to make it. Make the article on about October 10-11 or when the typhoon is affecting land areas. Well, we can create it now because of the strongest storm of 2014, but we need some people to decide whether make it right now or later on. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mercurywoodrose: I was waiting for Keith Edkins’s bulletins, yet he has been absent for six days. I think I should collect bulletins from GISC Tokyo by myself later. -- Meow 05:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Meow: or you could webcite them yourself by using his archiver and Webcite like he does. Also Typhoon2013 its already affected land so its eligible for an article.Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Oh sorry. I haven't put that much detail in my other reply. Vongfong affecting land areas, as in Japan or the southern Japanese Islands. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Vongfong also affected Mariana Islands, and is the most intense typhoon since Haiyan, so the article must be created.-- Byralaal - (talk!) 00:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Byralaal: I know it affected the Mariana Islands. And I know it is the most intense since Haiyan since I put it in the 2014 PTS timeline. I said that we should create the article when Vongfong is affecting the Japanese islands, but I agreed that yeah, we should create the article since its the strongest since Haiyan. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No @Typhoon2013: - we should make the article when it hits land for the first time and not after it hits the Japanese islands.Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I take link "2014 Catastrophe Recap" for damage to tropical cyclone in 2014? 113.167.234.27 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "2014 Catastrophe Recap" can only be used as one source for damages - the primary ones must be reports from the regions Meteorological and National Disaster Offices, such as the one from PAGASA.Jason Rees (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

First time since 1997 with five Category 5?

This claims that with Hagupit still at Category 5 as of this time, this season has featured five Category 5 super typhoons for the first time since the 1997 season. Since our articles might differ, is this a. worth adding and b. even correct?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Section titles

I have a big objection to using JTWC Designators and PAGASA names for the section title, as it is redundant and just leads to confusion for people who come and read this article.Jason Rees (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I also have a big objection to including the JMA international numbers after the names since there is no big need and just leads to more redundancy and this article being oversized.Jason Rees (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting Genevieve

I vehemently disagree with @Jason Rees: because I think it is important to note the apparent contradiction. The article previously noted it, hence why I was reinstating it. It's not redundant to "a decent summary" because there is not even a season summary to begin with and this information is otherwise not noted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on JR's talk page a few minutes ago. Dustin (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any contradiction since the system has crossed into the basin, as a tropical storm and has not developed into one while within the basin which is what the criteria is and the wording we use. IMO a decent sectional summary (Not Seasonal) would start imo, with something along the lines of tropical storm x moved into the basin from x basin which would thus make it redundant imo. That is why I removed the information about Gen, when the section was reworked at the start of the year. Just my thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
To a reader it could seem unusual that we have a storm whose name is not from that basin's list. And a sectional summary was exactly what my addition was adding to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say... Dustin (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO Jasper it should be mentioned at the top of the section here along the lines i have suggested rather than added as a line in the middle of a paragraph describing the names assigned by the JMA during the year.Jason Rees (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's relevant to the names section so I don't see why it shouldn't be there. For the Genevieve section it's already covered in its article, so we don't need it there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Absent further response from @Jason Rees: I will assume he no longer objects and accordingly reinstate my edit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding (Personal reasons) and yeah I still do disagree with your viewpoint Jasper, however, I can see where your coming from regarding the naming. So maybe we should compromise and adjust Genevieve's section to reflect the fact that it moved into the basin from the CPAC. as a typhoon (Its not mentioned in the season article and is crucial for the readers understanding of the system in this article imo.) While adding back the line about Genevieve to the JMA names section.Jason Rees (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with this compromise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Basins

I came to look up something, but got sidetracked by all the references to "basin" with no antecedent. Two of the sentences specify "West Pacific basin", but there are many others that just refer to "basin", with no name attached. It's frustrating to a non-meteorologist to read that the storm "entered the basin" or "developed over the basin" without any context. Is this a structural element of a storm? The whole ocean basin? A basin of low pressure? Some brief explanations in the article would be helpful. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on 2014 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_2&oldid=1092053480"