Talk:2019–20 Australian region cyclone season

Location of Advisories

 * Tropical Cyclone Three Day Outlook Jakarta \\ Perth \\ Darwin \\ Brisbane


 * Tropical Cyclone High Seas Warning Jakarta 1 \\ Jakarta 2 \\ Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin 1 \\ Darwin 2 \\ Brisbane 1 \\ Brisbane 2


 * Tropical Cyclone Technical Bulletin Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin 1 \\ Darwin 2 \\ Brisbane 1 \\ Brisbane 2


 * Main Pages Jakarta \\ BoM \\ Port Moresby \\ JTWC


 * ABIO10 STWA \\ ABPW10 STWA
 * JTWC(S) 1 \\ JTWC(S) 2 \\ JTWC(S) 3
 * JTWC(P) 1 \\ JTWC(P) 2 \\ JTWC(P) 3
 * Running Best track


 * JMA Archives: Jakarta // Perth // Darwin // Brisbane // JTWC


 * Analysis, including unpublished BOM designations
 * BUFR // ECMWF validator

New season effects template
Hello everyone. Prior to the start of the season, I developed a new season effects template for tropical cyclone season articles. It is currently usable in the Australian and South Pacific basins; however, I could easily update it to make it usable in the other basins. It features several improvements to the previous season effects template in terms of both usability and presentation.

There are only two minor changes to the structure of the table itself; specifically, the AUD damage column has been removed (the USD has been retained), and there is no longer a title for the references column. The AUD column was unnecessary and somewhat illogical since there are several currencies used in the region, and the "References"or "Refs" title takes up unnecessary space.

Now onto the improvements! The main one is that the template is now mostly automated. You no longer have to worry about inputting non-breaking spaces, en dashes, and other such things in order to format dates, wind speeds, pressures and so on—the template now does this automatically! Furthermore, you no longer have to manually enter the wind speed conversions between km/h and mph or enter brackets for the secondary unit. Again, this is done automatically. Furthermore, you no longer have to enter the cyclone category four times in order to get the correct category and colours to show. You only have to enter it once and the table formats everything. Moreover, you don't have to type out the full category name either, so no more manually entering "Category 5 severe tropical cyclone". You just have to put "5", and, you guessed it, the template does it automatically. You don't have to write damage amounts in thousands or millions or billions either—simply enter the numerical value. You also do not need to enter any sorting values, as these are calculated automatically. The only places where you have to do your own formatting is the column with the areas affected information. You still have to provide links to the locations and add non-breaking spaces where relevant. The references are entered as normal, too.

Another improvement is that each template parameter is now named, making Visual Editor editing significantly easier, and also improving the source editor experience. The unit names (e.g. km/h, hPa) have also been moved to the header row to comply with proper conventions for constructing tables (it also saves room). The actual names of the template components (the header, the rows and the footer) have also been changed to actually be logical and consistent.

There are of course a few minor drawbacks as can be expected with any change. One is that opening the season effects table in Visual Editor takes a little bit longer than before, probably due to the large number of transcluded templates and conditional logic in the programming. Also, since the template parameters now have names, the code takes up more space in the source editor. However, these are definitely outweighed by the benefits that this new design brings.

The template should be fairly straightforward to use, but if you need any explanation on individual parameters, I have created documentation pages for each of the three templates that make up the season effects table. The documentation details the allowable inputs for each parameter, and when to use them.
 * Template:Australian cyclone season effects (top)/doc
 * Template:Australian cyclone season effects (cyclone)/doc
 * Template:Australian cyclone season effects (bottom)/doc

Here are a few important things to remember:
 * Input wind speeds in knots (kn)
 * Input pressure values in hectopascals (hPa)
 * Don't enter any units or formatting except in the "Areas" parameter
 * The value for the "Date tiebreak" parameter is usually 1 (if multiple systems formed on the same day, the first system would be 1, the second system would be 2, the third would be 3, etc.)
 * All parameters are required except for "Areas", "Damage prefix", "Deaths prefix" and "References"

I hope everyone likes the new template! Please let me know if you have any questions.

TL;DR: I developed a new, automated, streamlined season effects template which will make editing easier. Please read the documentation linked above for usage information. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice template though, actually. I like it more than the original one. Could make one for the future 2020 Atl season. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of tropical lows
Ok. Im sorry about deleting the template off the page, you can fix that. however.... Please do not put uncited info on the page. There are not 2 tropical lows active and if you believe so, please give me proof to how. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two tropical lows active and we have provided you with proof, but you don't believe us and think that the JTWC should be mentioning each and every tropical system that the RSMC/TCWC monitor as an invest which is not correct. I also note that one could technically argue that the very fact that its 02U means that there have been two tropical lows, however, I don't personally agree with doing this.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is over. I’ll stop bugging you because obviously you have more “experience” than me. If you stop bugging me, I’ll stop bugging you. Deal? Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes i have a lot more experience than you, know where to get the advisories from, what to believe etc, but you need to grow up and treat editors with more respect especially since we have tried to treat you with respect. I would also say that you need to take the information from the advisories rather than making it up based on satellite imagery, surface maps etc.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Future Blake article
If Blake gets a little stronger than its current intensity (C1 on Aus scale) before landfall, could I make an article for it? It may bring lots of rainfall to the Pilbara region soon, and could have some pretty big impacts. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 02:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * would like a reply Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you writing the article if you wish, however, I think that might be working on one already.Jason Rees (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think he is. The storm seems like it is notable enough for an article, right? Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 23:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Category 1 TCs on Western Australia are always hard to judge. As a result, I would wait and expand the season article out first with verifiable information that is taken from the warnings and not satellite imagery or maps. Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tropical lows aren't tropical cyclones
Why you do wait for tropical low to dissipate before putting dissipation date? They are not tropical cyclones but they are tropical low pressure areas just like tropical invests, tropical waves and tropical disturbances aren't tropical cyclones too.

If tropical cyclone transition into extratropical low or australian east coast low then BoM would classified it as tropical low. EllaCyclone (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Within the region, a tropical low is considered to be a [tropical depression] and no the BoM does not classify extratropical lows or Australian east coast lows as tropical lows. I would agree that some are probably just tropical disturbances or areas of low pressure though, when compared to other regions like the Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of true, but we have to consider how categories are treated in their cyclone database. In the best track format for BoM, a tropical low is not always a tropical cyclone. The difference is if the low has a closed isobar. If not it is classified a disturbance. They also have a category for extra-tropical lows. Here's the annoying part, the BoM is very inconsistent with their application of their own definitions and they don't have these classifications for operational products as far as I'm aware. Source: Best track document, under cyclone type Supportstorm (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * TL 2020-01-31.jpg

Tropical Low Uesi section
, I am writing this message to inform you both that I am hereby permanently reinstating the Tropical Low Uesi section in this article. There are three official BOM sources that place this system within the region as a tropical low, namely the current BOM-issued track map on their MetEye service, and two WMO-official, BOM-issued high seas forecasts which state the system to exist at specific coordinates within the bounds of the Australian region, which is their area of responsibility. One of these coordinates is on the region boundary at 160°E, and the other is categorically, unambiguously and irrefutably within the region at 159°E. In addition, there are two other sources from the BOM which supplement this information. Any information from other agencies, namely the FMS and JTWC, is irrelevant and immaterial as they are unofficial, and is to be treated as incorrect where it is contradictory to the BOM on matters concerning their official functioning as the RSMC for the Australian basin.

I refuse to sanction the removal of this section without official documentary evidence from the BOM with revised information that asserts the tropical low to never have existed at or west of 160°E, and declares their previous observations and analysis in at least three of their official products to be null. I will revert Any removal of the section should be reverted as it amounts to the improper and misguided suppression of official information and may be considered vandalism. I appreciate the input and opinions you have provided, and acknowledge that you are both experienced editors; however, the suggestion that the system was never located in the Australian region is based on unofficially sourced information and is demonstrably incorrect according to the most up-to-date official information.

Feel free to reply to this message below; however, as I explained above, I will not accept removing the TL Uesi section or moving it to "Other systems". I will also note that Tropical Cyclone Uesi will almost certainly move into the Australian region once again soon as a tropical system, which will provide yet more reason to keep the section. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, no you will not: you will wait until consensus is achieved. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to form a consensus for it to be removed. By default, based on official information, it is kept. If you remove it and then say that I need consensus to bring it back, you are asserting that you have more authority when it comes to tropical cyclones in the Australian region than the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, which is utterly absurd. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "By default" is not a policy; BRD and BURDEN are. We cannot make the connection between this tropical low and Uesi without the RSMC of the latter affirming that. Connecting them otherwise is original research. We have had multiple discussions on "Other systems" and therefore, please open a discussion at WT:WPTC if you want to change the practice of having that section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not a policy, and WP:BURDEN is not related to the point you're trying to make about consensus. Ironically, I am the one who has already fulfilled my obligations under WP:BURDEN, and you have not. Also, are you actually claiming in all honesty that you think the tropical low in the Australian region and Tropical Cyclone Uesi are different systems? There is no evidence at all to suggest that is true. The BOM is the official agency issuing high seas warnings and marine forecasts for the Coral Sea out to 170°E (known as Metarea 10, an official map of which can be found on the World Meteorological Organisation website), and not once did they mention any low pressure systems in the entire region other than the tropical low that became Uesi. The nearest low pressure system at the time the tropical low was at 159°E (18:00 UTC on 4 February) was some 2500 km away, over far western Queensland (evidence can be found here and here). 24 hours later, the same TL was the only low-pressure system in the region. There were no other low-pressure systems which later suddenly formed and rapidly intensified into a tropical cyclone.


 * Also, your suggestion that the BOM and FMS must agree on something or that the FMS must confirm a BOM analysis for us to include it in an article is simply false, because they regularly publish contradictory information. One such example happened this afternoon (local time). The BOM's analysis of Uesi at 00:00 UTC on 12 February indicated that it had weakened to Category 2, with sustained winds of 60 knots and a pressure of 977 hPa. However, at the very same time, the FMS still considered the system to be Category 3 with winds of 65 knots and a pressure of 976 hPa. Another example is at 18:00 UTC on 6 February, when the BOM assessed the system's pressure as 1000 hPa when the FMS analysed it as 1006 hPa instead (according to Jason Rees). Yet another example is that right now, as of 09:00 UTC on 12 February, the BOM has the system located at 23.7°S 162.2°E, whereas the FMS has it at 24.5°S 162.1°E. As you can see, the agencies regularly disagree on everything from the location of the system to the intensity of the system to the forecast track and intensity, so claiming that you have to have the unofficial FMS support the official BOM on a claim within the Australian region is flat out wrong. That is the very reason we have the rule that the RSMC supersedes all other sources, and the fact that you seem to be ignoring this rule so completely is astounding.


 * I will indeed start a discussion regarding the "Other systems" section, so we don't have to discuss it here for the moment. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, since you want to insert material, the burden to gain consensus for it is on you. The problem is, you have emphatically not satisfied the verifiability challenge I have raised because per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this whole mess are multiple centers of circulation (typical of this region), so what youare saying is not enough. Also, you really are not helping your case by being this verbose. The entire second paragraph of yours is a red herring. Also, I highly suggest you comply with BRD by self-reverting. BRD exists for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My second paragraph was not a red herring. I was providing examples to explain why the FMS and BOM do not need to agree for us to include information, which was a point indirectly raised by Jason Rees on my talk page. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the WP:SYNTH thing, how explicit do you want it? The source literally says, " A weak tropical low lies along the trough southwest of the Solomon Islands" and then says, "The area of coverage for this outlook is the Coral Sea and northern Tasman Sea west of 160E". I'm not sure how much more explicit it can possibly get. I am not twisting the BOM's words to suit an agenda—this is not a philosophy or social sciences or politics article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that I moved the "Other systems" spiel to a new section for the moment. I will raise it at WP:WPTC when I have the time. ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Other systems" section from Australian region article

 * Moved to Proposal to remove "Other systems" section from Australian region article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Irondro
There's no evidence BoM declared Irondro to be a TL; the "Ex-" prefix does not imply tropical low status. Thus I've moved it to "other systems".--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one, but I think it is worth keeping as its own section. The thing is, the BOM doesn't actually have a specific definition for "tropical low", so it can sometimes be difficult to tell. I think in this case, the fact that they chose to specifically use the term "Ex-Tropical Cyclone", both in the TC Outlook and the High Seas Forecast, is enough evidence to include the system in its own section as a "tropical low". They could have just mentioned it as a "low" like any other system in the High Seas Forecast, but they specifically said Ex-TC Irondro at 06Z. In the 18Z High Seas Forecast, the Ex-TC classification is no longer mentioned, which suggests that the system has since weakened below what one might refer to as "tropical low" or "classification status". If the system was insignificant in a technical or classification sense upon entering the region, they just would have used "low" immediately, rather than waiting 12 hours to do so. Clearly, something changed from 06Z to 18Z. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Since you obviously want me to get involved, I would comment that it had become post tropical by the time of MFR's final warning at 88.6E. As a result, I agree with it getting a sentence or two in other systems but not a full blown section unless proof comes to light that it was 11U. Jason Rees (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies! I typed the wrong name. I intended to ping Jasper. On a side note, Irondro definitely isn't 11U, because Harold was 12U. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jason, though. The bottom line is you cannot do WP:OR and put words in BoM's mouth.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Mangga article
I've learned that Mangga was retired, and that makes me think Mangga warrants an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclonicStormYutu (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)