Talk:Typhoon Noru (2017)

Genevieve layout?
Because Noru is a long-lasting system and its MH is long, should we follow a similar layout of Typhoon Genevieve? Or should we just leave it as it is? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is for now and see if you could cut down MH. Once the storm dies, we may need to re-evaluate. YE Pacific Hurricane  04:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It remains uncertain as Noru is currently impacting Japan, but Genevieve did not affect anywhere. 🐱💬 15:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It could use level-3 headers within the MH once the section is expanded further. No rush for this though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that Noru has dissipated, I agree we should have this in a MH-style layout. It is just personally too large and obviously outweighs the impacts section which doesn't really have anything and if other damage from Noru in Japan isn't released for a while, then we should just have it in the Epsilon/Nadine/Genevieve layout. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The amount of information for the MH section is so good tbh that the possibility of this article exceeding to a GA is likely in the future (ofc we only need Prep+Imp section). Same perspective as yours, and I don't think we should "cut down" the section, but as stated, maybe using level-3 headers is a really good idea. I'm just really 'too scared' to edit the MH section that maybe I will stuff things up.  Typhoon2013  (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The MH may be long but its probably somewhat too detailed, and can be cut without removing any facts. Also this isn't becoming a GA without any impact, in which there's only one line of. YE Pacific Hurricane  01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to "cut down" the MH, really. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Really there is .Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Locked track map
Because of a mistake from some editor of Chinese Wikipedia, Noru’s track map is locked now. I am currently uploading to another place, and an administrator would update the original file from the temporary file I upload. 🐱💬 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will also finish the whole meteorological history to August 6 tomorrow and try to add some information about Japan. So sorry I have some events today. 🐱💬 15:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Longest-lived typhoon rankings
Hi everyone. I thought it might be helpful to have an easy reference for determining how Typhoon Noru compares to other notable tropical cyclones in the northwestern Pacific Ocean in terms of duration. After meticulously searching every Pacific typhoon season article since 1945, I have compiled this list/guide:

It is important to note that the tropical cyclones displayed above do not represent or include all of the longest-lived typhoons in the northwestern Pacific Ocean. This is due to the fact that a 21-day typhoon in 1980, for instance, would be beaten by default when Noru beats the more recent and longer-lived Wayne of 1986. The above list shows the order in which Noru will have to beat the different typhoons in order to become the longest-lived (or longest-lived since one of the listed ones) typhoon. Hopefully that mediocre explanation can be understood by everyone. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you knew that data in a lot of our articles need updating to reflect JMA data and may be incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha nice I do that a lot too. Just to note that this is not yet the official for Noru because we will have its BT around next month. Also I would not count Noru developed on 19/7 for this, but I would count from the date when it had reached TS intensity which was I think 21/7. Also sadly, because it is the Wikipedia, we need to have a reliable source. :( Typhoon2013  (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Two JTWC Peak Intensities?
The second RI event occurred between 29 Jul 2017 at 1800Z to 30 Jul 2017 at 1800Z, during which time the system intensified from 60 knots to its peak of 140 knots approximately 130 nm to the south of Iwo To (Figure 1-24).

Above is an excerpt from the JTWC's report. As one may note,they are admitting here to a peak of 140 kt at 18z on July 30. However, all of their best-track data says 135 kt for the peak at that same time. I would like to know what Wikipedia's policy is in the event of a contradiction like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting catch and the general rule of thumb is to look at the data presented carefully and make a judgment from there. In this case, I note that 140 kts was the operational intensity as assigned in Warning 41. I have also had a look at the ATCR in-depth and its only mentions 140 kts once, which leads me to think that it's just a mistake.Jason Rees (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 31, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-07-31. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)