Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Jangmi
If Jangmi is mentioned on the JMA's WWJP25 at 00z - it will officially be a year crossing tropical depression, which means we are in waters which have not been charted for a few years. My thoughts are too count it as the first tropical depression of 2015 but not too give it a full section, this would be consistent with how we treated the last year crosser back in 2011/12. However, as always i welcome other peoples thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Jangmi should stay in the 2014 article. Although we could mention about this storm in the 2015 summary since the depression of 2011-12 is more different. A similar to this is Soulik in the 2000-01 season. Typhoon2013  (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update - it was mentioned. Typhoon2013 in the seasonal summuary and other systems suits me fine and was what i was meaning.Jason Rees (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. And how come the 1st TD has nothing to do with Jangmi? That was Jangmi's remnants right if OK to mention in the Tropical Depression or Tropical Storm Jangmi section? Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the JTWC's STWA: the weak tropical depression currently active has nothing to do with Jangmi which "clearly dissipated over Northern Borneo." It is also worth noting that the JMA had no tropical depressions at 00z last night before initiating advisories on the weak tropical depression.Jason Rees (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * However, JMA the official RSMC, never dissipated the system. They downgraded the tropical depression into a low pressure area--still with a circulation--for one bulletin before upgrading again to a tropical depression.Senorpepr (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The weak tropical depression has nothing to do with Jangmi. As you can see here, they were two separate systems.Damien4794 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or is it OK if we put in the 2015 Tropical depression: "possibly from the remnants of Jangmi" or "which may come from the remnants of Jangmi"? I thought of this since there are some people and sites that say that the tropical depression is the former-Jangmi. Typhoon2013  (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to leave it as is for now, until we have the BT on Jangmi from the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, . But do we need an article for Jangmi as well? This is since an anon user requested to me to create the article and no one really edits it, just him. Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have only just seen this message, but you are talking about removing an article for a system that has had its name retired if the IPs are too believed.Jason Rees (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Track map
Could someone fix the 2015 track map since Australia is seen and both Japan and Korea is unseen? Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, since no one did it especially Keith Edkins, I fixed it. But sorry I used the 'paint' app for this. Typhoon2013  (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2015 Pacific typhoon season
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 Pacific typhoon season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TSR May": From 2010 Pacific typhoon season:  From 2011 Pacific typhoon season:  From 2009 Pacific typhoon season:  From 2014 Pacific typhoon season:  From 2013 Pacific typhoon season:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Future Retirement names and sentences
This is weird that I am putting this topic in this article talk page since I don't know where to put this. So, I've experienced in the last 2 years that whenever the season ends, someone creates the Retirement section. Most of the time I should say, that it says that the replacement names for the retired ones will be chosen and confirmed by January of the next year. However, it's not real for me since the replacement names chosen from 2013 (Sonamu, Utor, Fitow and Haiyan), hasn't been confirmed and especially PAGASA. What I've found out before that it was confirmed by February instead of January. So on the end of this year, do we put: "Replacement names will be chosen by February 2016"? It's a bit hard to explain about this. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The WMO names are in theory retired on January 1 of the year following the meeting, it should not say anything about replacement names being chosen by January 1 since its not true.Jason Rees (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that the replacement names will be revealed somewhere this January? Typhoon2013  (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No not at all. I can only tell you that the WMO replacement names will be chosen at the next typhoon committee meeting. I can not tell you when they will be released. However, this does not mean that the names haven't been retired already.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Images and more images of Higos.
What's happening here!?? An upload war??


 * So, what could we do to avoid uploading the same files?? I follow the file name version of STORM 2015-10-12 0000Z but others follow the STORM Feb 12 2015 0000Z version. What do you suggest?? -- B yr al aal  - (talk!) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - I think part of the problem has been User:Insatlok who was uploading some of the images and has just been indefinitely blocked. Meow and Supportstorm should be able to comment about the rest of your concerns Byralaal.Jason Rees (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone’s childish movements. -- Meow  18:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Insatlok was uploading images to be used on his own version of this article. The reason why is not very clear, but I did request a speedy deletion on the MTSAT image which was completed. Supportstorm (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again and I think we need more accuracy on things
I like how other users help Keith Edkins to make storm tracks. Although sometimes when Keith Edkins update it, it's wrong. This time it's showing part of N. Australia again. I don't want to revert him again, though. I don't know why I am telling you guys this but... I think we really need our WikiProject to be more accurate as well. BTW I am just saying this, I am not saying that I want to be the boss of stuff because I suck at that. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is right that Northern Australia was shown at the start of the season due to the way the map generator works and the geography of the storms.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness, I hadn't realised that there was such a thing as allergy to Australia! I have hastily prepared a warning to add to future maps:


 * Seriously, I have arranged that my future releases will use the same bounds as the 17th February update by Supportstorm--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Help for sources of Typhoon Higos, please!
Hi again, guys. I don't know if you know this but I already created the Timeline of the 2015 Pacific typhoon season two days ago. I completed it, but I need help for information from Typhoon Higos because there are a lack of sources I could find. I could find lots but they are not good sources for here. Either just put down sources, put sources in the 2015 Pacific typhoon season on Typhoon Higos' section or help me in the new article. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/February -- Meow  08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really wish you would use the same format as has been established for the previous few season timelines, rather than your own one which contains irrelevant information like TCFA's and when the initial tropical disturbance was first noted. .Jason Rees (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Timelines also need to be written in the present tense. You might want to take a look at some featured timelines for non-NHC seasons (as the format is different for them vs. the rest of the world) as a guide. &mdash; Iune  (talk)  21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot about that advice. Thanks though. I'll do that later. :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Article for Noul?
Noul is soon going to impact the Philippines, and because Mount Bulusan is also involved according to media reports, it might be time for us to make an article. It's going to make landfall as a major typhoon, so we at least have that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Dodong (Noul) will make landfall in Philippines. Anyone create article for Noul? but is Typhoon Noul (2015). Nino Marakot talk 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary at the moment. Content can easily still fit in the season article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jasper Deng and Cyclonebiskit here. Yes we should make the article for Noul, however it's not necessary at the moment. First, let's see with the impacts of Noul to the Philippines then we decide. Typhoon2013  (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now it has rapidly deepened to a super typhoon, and in the past I've seen articles created for super typhoons before landfall.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jasper, I do not see any reason why we need to wait - its very likely to be a Cat 5 impact even if its only Northern Luzon being affected.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Any takers?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said to my earlier comment yesterday, it depends. We need to see the impacts of the storm first. Although if we do create it now and finish it, its class will either be a Start or a Stub and it's not going to be cool as the Typhoon Maysak (2015) article (maybe). Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to basics: this storm is receiving a lot of media coverage, and it more than meets WP:GNG, and thus is obviously eligible for an article. Category 5 landfalls are notable and of themselves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I trust you on this. Be bold and make the article. Also why do you need to start a topic just asking to create an article? Like me, I just make the article without starting a topic. Unless if the article is poor for many weeks, then starting a topic in its talk page would be necessary. These are just tips for next time. Have a good day! :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Extras
Hi. I just wanted to say what an active start for the year for typhoons. So, I just found out that as of today, about 4 typhoons broke the record in this season:

1.) Typhoon Higos - strongest typhoon in the month of February.

2.) Typhoon Maysak - strongest typhoon prior to the month of April.

3.) Typhoon Noul - in the Top 5 strongest typhoons in month of May and brought heaviest winds ever recorded in Japan in May.

4.) Typhoon Dolphin - earliest 7th named storm within the basin since 1971.

For the articles of Maysak and Noul, do you think we should add a section about its record? And I think we should start adding information in the summary of the 2015 PTS article on the top. What are your thoughts? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this belongs in the season summary, succinctly like "The season has had an unusually active start" or something.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would definitely be in there. But do we think we need a section in the articles of Maysak and Noul about their record? Or do we just put it in its summary in those articles as well? Typhoon2013  (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For storm articles, they just need a mention in the met. history section, not a separate section of their own. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline layout
Originally I accepted 's rationale for keeping Kujira in the first series of bars. But the more I think of it the more I think it doesn't make sense. Kujira and the newly-formed tropical depression are part of a new pulse of activity after more than a month of inactivity in this basin. Therefore it does not make sense to group Kujira with the first seven storms. I believe it looks a bit neater and better organized this way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a timeline (not the timeline article) so it doesn't matter really. For this type of timeline, the most important thing is that in each column there are the same (or nearly the same) amount of storms. At least, it will be fixed soon when we get lots of storms. Typhoon2013  (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also important to clearly delineate different stages of activity during the season for readability purposes, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit again. So can we please talk about this before you rv that edit? I will leave a message ASAP. Typhoon2013  (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For transparency, by the way, everyone in the WPTC IRC channel agreed with me that we should follow the JMA (the RSMC), not the JTWC when deciding to add the template or not. Also, please read WP:BRD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, just only seen this message. I'll try to find the link to that and I'll be there shortly to talk. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the issue at hand (the timeline), I have provided a good reason to separate them as I did so and you have not provided a good rebuttal; the burden is on you to do so. And again, there is no question about the infobox: JMA is the RSMC, period. Nothing the JTWC says beyond 1-minute winds matters for us. The infobox does not mention the JTWC at all; the 1-minute winds are derived from the existing track file (currently Invest 95W).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I' pretty sure I gave a reason to both the issues. Otherwise you didn't understand what I'm talking about? Ok, the problem is I can't access the IRC Chat thing, so we might just talk by editing and clicking the Save Page button now unless I try. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor do I think IRC is an acceptable medium to build binding on-wiki consensus; I had asked there for a temperature check and no-one there supports your view, particularly regarding the infobox - I was mentioning it to suggest that the burden is on you to provide a link to the discussion generating consensus for the infobox practice, otherwise the practice cannot stand. I also don't buy your reasoning for the timeline because the number of storms per timeline series is ultimately arbitrary, while the number of storms in each activity period is fixed (there were exactly seven named storms before the period of quiet last month).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I got access now. Are you in there? Cause I don't see your name. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I should've done this earlier today. I still agree of putting the infobox even though it's just a TD by the JMA. However I wanted to ask, do we put the infobox when the JMA starts issuing advisories on it (even as a TD)? Because we have the 11th TD now however it only says on the JMA Weather maps, not yet in the TC Information or they haven't even issued advisories on it yet. Do we add the "current infobox" even though it's not yet issuing advisories? Typhoon2013  (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for advisories, since I consider the designation of this TD as equivalent to an invest; most importantly depressions like this are omitted from best track unless advisories get initiated.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the info. Typhoon2013  (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind I could fix the timeline? It looks awful now since we have a load of tropical cyclones developing in July (8 total including Chan-hom). This is also challenging to me because we might copy the timeline layout of the 2013 PTS article soon. What do you think and see for yourself. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Define "fixing" the timeline.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally i think a break should be put in on the timeline image before either Noul or Kujira.Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Imo the break should be either after Kujira or Chan-hom because we have 9 systems that developed in July. Otherwise we have to copy a similar output to the 2013 timeline image. But as I said a few messages above, it depends what the 2015 timeline layout looks like since (for example) we ended having 35 systems, then the breaks should be placed 5 times in every 7 storms to be even, or at least nearly even as same as the 2014 timeline layout. Typhoon2013  (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We dont have to copy any formats on how we layout the timeline image or make sure its even as long as it is presentable at the end of the season it doesnt matter.Jason Rees (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes at long as it is presentable. But our edits in the timeline layout is not presentable and sucks, so instead I added another break before the latest depression. It doesn't matter really. Typhoon2013  (talk) 06:33, 22 July July 2015 (UTC)