Talk:Typhoon Melor (2009)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Typhoon Melor (2009). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/ab/abpwweb.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/wp9009web.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpq34.pgum.tcp.pq4.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guampdn.com/article/20091005/NEWS01/910050302
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQOnXxvS4hZNm7asYS-NSzM8VRIAD9B3U3080
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33208709/ns/weather/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/707371--two-killed-as-typhoon-wreaks-havoc-on-japan

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

 * The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the merge proposal was: No Consensus for merger.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Formal request has been received to merge the article October 2009 North American storm complex into Typhoon Melor (2009); dated: November 2017. Proposer's Rationale. redevelopments of each other. Discuss here. A Skilled User, 16:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.8.160 (talk)
 * Very Strong Oppose - The 2 storms are completely separate systems. The October 2009 storm complex was a different extratropical cyclone that ended up absorbing Melor's remnants. As such, these are 2 separate storm systems.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of further discussion, I will now be closing this discussion as No consensus.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Typhoon Melor (2009) → Typhoon Melor and October 2009 North American storm complex – Long title, but I believe both events should be in the same article, as neither story can be told without the other. Melor is notable enough for its own article - it caused $1.5 billion in damage and struck Japan as a typhoon. That same storm fueled a powerful pineapple express that affected North America. So much of the met history is shared between the two events, not to mention, Melor's article discusses the North American impacts. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Although both articles say that the two events are associated with each other, they were not directly linked to each other. The extratropical cyclone is a completely separate system which had a different origin and happened to absorb Melor's remnants. This is also mentioned in the discussion above 7 years ago. Therefore, I think it is perfectly fine as it is to leave both events as separate articles. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's OK if they're not directly related though. See Cyclones Judy and Kevin. Or any time there's a flood event with a complex history. The extratropical cyclone is not completely separate. It absorbed Melor and was fueled by it. A lot of sources also mention Melor as being a factor in the storm complex. So it's not a completely separate system, there is a lot of overlap, and as I said, neither story can be told without the other. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cyclones Judy and Kevin is a different case though where the impacts cannot be distinguished between each storm, and this is not the case here. Melor itself was only notable for having significant impacts on Japan, and the storm complex that happened afterwards was mainly just impacting the West Coast of the United States. While both their meteorological history overlap to some extent, both their impacts are distinct enough and have adequate information in their respective articles and there is no actual overlap between the impacts that the articles are perfectly fine to stand on their own. Merging them would complicate things a bit, in my opinion. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's like merging Hurricane Joaquin and October 2015 North American storm complex, or Tropical Storm Philippe (2017) and October 2017 North American storm complex (latter merger failed btw).--2600:4808:353:7B01:F6C0:EE9F:448C:D9A4 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the relative lack of notability for Philippe or the 2017 storm complex, I think that would be a good idea, especially since they both are short. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.