Talk:2019 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 3

Hagibis/20W
Hagibis now cat4/950mPa typhoon, please update the information of the storm now. 103.139.42.63 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|103.139.42.63}] Okay, but where did you get that information?

I think I know wear some people are getting unofficial intensties
There is a citizen metolagical agency that has the same numbers I see in some edits it's called Force thirteen and they have a YouTube channel. Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Force Thirteen may be unreliable. It could have been making up their own wind speed of tropical cyclones or got it from unreliable sources. 172.75.163.98 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jasper Deng/No Force 13. Use this on such users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

They say they use a system called SATI to measure the strength Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/user/Forcethirteen Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@172.75.163.98 The Force Thirteen data is nearly always wrong! (especially for those high-end Category 4s, they make it C5) AAnnoonnyymous (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

And for Lorenzo they kept it a C4 Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hagibis section
Just a note, since we now have an established article for Hagibis, I think it is now best to summarize its section here in the PTS article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Gopher it! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

21W and 22W
Nobody gonna update the information? 27.76.17.237 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox hurricane small
Who change the position of the track and the images? It also changed in other language's wiki.--Oscar1003 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one changed the template as far as I can tell. I see the changed track positions and could chalk it up to the latest Chrome update breaking some html elements. Supportstorm (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

JMA vs. JTWC Advisories
Are active dates for storms in the articlebased on JMA or JTWC advisories? JTWC already issued its final advisory on STS Matmo while JMA is still issuing advisories, and I wasn't sure from which agency that active dates are based off here. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're based on JMA advisories as it's the RSMC for the Western Pacific. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Damages from Matmo - bão số 5 tropical storm number 5 in Vietnam
Matmo caused more than 1 million households lost electricity initial, destroyed or damaged thousand s houses and ships. Heavy rains damaged many roads. Da Nang beach is reported "full of rubbishes" after two heavy rainfall days. One person reported died while another missing. 14 people reported wounded. economic damages estimated at 2,400-2,600 tỷ đồng (112-135 million USD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.86.181 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Forecast track maps
Since we now have a bot updating not just the JTWC forecast track map but also for the JMA, the should we use the JMA forecast track maps from now on since JMA is the RSMC of this basin? Or should we just remain with the norm of using the JTWC ones? Thoughts? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * JMA’s maps are copyrighted IIRC. Sadly that means we can’t use them.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Halong (closed)
Typhoon Halong has became the strongest tropical cyclone in 2019, and it had a mind-bogglingly high wind speed of 190 mph and a minimum central pressure below 900 millibars, and like Typhoon Tip or any other strong cyclones, should get its own article. 23:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricaneboy23 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It only peaked at 180 mph. Not 190. EBGamingWiki (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence stating that it peaked with 1-minute sustained winds of around 193mph with a minimum central pressure of 892hPa, which would place it within the top 10 strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded. WiggleCat (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * those are automated estimates, not actual analyses. The primary warning agency for the Western Pacific is the Japan Meteorological Agency, and we use their analyses as the primary intensities. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center estimates are included to provide additional global coverage; they also used to be the primary warning center. The peak intensity we list is 115 kt (10-min) and 905 mb accordingly. No source overrides the JMA for our purposes here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple typhoons that are strong that don't have their own article. Especially the typhoons from the 1997 season.  F B  708  00:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose As much as I believe JTWC underestimated the storm (even at 155 knots), no reliable sources are calling it a record-breaker and its content can easily fit in the season article, unless it sinks a ship or otherwise gets impacts attributed to it by reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For As a category 5 Typhoon, I honestly think it deserves a separate article, even if it's not record-breaking or anything. Category 5 equivalent tropical cyclones are an incredible meteorological event, and even if they don't hit human lives, or anything such it can be interesting to study them. We can have a decent amount of content about this typhoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoink (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC) — Meteoink (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose Category 5 systems are so common in the WPAC that they don't deserve their own articles unless they have impacts. Please note virtually all Atlantic Cat 5s made landfall and most of the EPAC ones have impacts as well. This storm simply is not notable enough. Noah Talk 11:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For Even if Category 5 systems are common in such places, this one's pressure fell under 910mb, which is enough to deserve an article. I honestly don't think that only the tropical cyclones which make landfall deserve a page. For pure passionates, this one is as important as others (Not talking about lives). Mostly due to its explosive growth on november 4-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoink (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC) — Meteoink (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It’s not about landfalls; Hurricane Jose (2017) never made landfall. It’s also not about central pressure; no less than three typhoons last year achieved 905 or lower. —Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – this has not broken any records (typical WPAC), is not extremely unusual meteorologically (again, typical WPAC), and has zero land impact. This is not worth an entire separate article; its entire meteorological history can easily fit in the season section. While such intense cyclones are interesting meteorologically, remember that Wikipedia caters to a general audience. An entire article of meteorological history of a storm that impacted nobody would bear little significance to an average reader. For people new to WPTC, the longstanding practice for creating separate storm articles has been to check if there is content that cannot be adequately summarised in the season article first, and split off an individual storm article if the season section start to overflow (usually as a storm begins to impact land since this is accompanied by significantly increased coverage by reliable sources). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree I disagree with the arguments brought forward by Hurricaneboy23 as Halong has not broken any records in terms of lowest central pressure or recorded wind speed and the pressure was not 899 mbar officially. Numerous systems in the Western-Pacific Ocean have undergone the same intensity changes and fluctuations as Halong and as it has not made any significant impacts if not any impact on land, it does not deserve to have its own article made as that would just be a waste of time documenting a system which is practically the same as other systems that have existed in the Western-Pacific before. Super Typhoon Eden Message me here! 17:57, 6th November 2019
 * Disagree There have been a lot of category 5 hurricanes in the WPAC that don’t have an article, even if they are very strong and broke many records (for example June had a pressure of 875 mbar but doesn’t have an article). These super typhoons can have articles only if they impacted land. David The Meteorologist 🌦❄️🌪
 * Oppose – If it were in a basin where storms that intensity were a rarity and it weren't in the middle of nowhere, you might have an argument. Strong typhoons are not uncommon, though, and there's nothing particularly special about this one. Master of Time   ( talk ) 07:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For - I think this should have article because Wutip barely impacted any land and has an article, so why not make one about Halong too if Wutip has one? Not to mention Pabuk has an article and so does TD Wilma of 2013! So I think it should! The Vaqwuian  Talk with Vaqwuian  9:43 A.M. November 8, 2019. Happy 6th birthday Haiyan!
 * All three storms you mention caused sizable land impact – Wutip to Micronesia, Pabuk to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, and Wilma to the Philippines and India. Halong has touched absolutely nothing. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is not a valid argument. Wutip broke a record, Halong did not.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I'm with most other people. Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – pretty unnecessary really. This storm was also rather short-lived with barely an impacts whatsoever. Also support JD's points here. Typhoon2013  (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tropical Depression 27W track, courtesy of the Japanese Meteorological Agency.png
 * Delete: Yea the creator of the file clearly does not know how to upload images, and plus, why create one when we already established a bot who can do that in the first place? Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Nakri and Matmo
Nakri (Bão số 6) had killed 2 people in Vietnam and Matmo killed one, please update information cites. 112.213.86.181 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An article for Typhoon Kammuri
Typhoon Kammuri looks like a dangerous system, but I will start on doing the draft in case you need the page to be published. View it on my main page User:Typhoon You-too
 * This is premature.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
yes 103.134.62.18 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

News analysis: Maybe Typhoon Mitag deserves an article.
Ok. Hear me out. I have seen A LOT of new articles considering Mitag on Google. And many.... many more on Korea and Taiwan local news. Mitag was a damaging typhoon, costing nearly a billion dollars in damage due to flooding in Taiwan and South Korea, kind of like a “Tropical Storm Imelda” in the West Pacific. I think it should be considered. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Go for it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I’d appreciate help on the draft Draft:Typhoon Mitag (2019) Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)