Talk:2017 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Archive 1

01W is still active.

The new TD is just a continuation of 01W, which means it's still active. Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Proof: www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/01W/imagery/vis_lalo-animated.gif Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T.: @Agila81: Thank you for a source, but for this case, we're using the JMA. Also from this site, since there are now "3" systems, the 2nd and 3rd TD are separate systems. As seen from the map, there are 2 separate circulations. Feel free to change the time/date at the top. Also I did not suggest this, though many users including me have discussed this last year so this is not a new thing. You could simply just see the discussion in last year's talk page. 2016 PTS talk page. Thank you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Earth wind is not a valid source, however, the JMA did track 01W as three separate systems. This is true because if we look at both high seas text and weather maps JMA analyzed 01W as an area of low pressure intermittently. Since "low-pressure systems with no definite surface cyclonic wind circulation are categorized as low-pressure areas (LPAs)" we cannot connect 01W and the two subsequent depressions as the same system. This may be revised later when the post-analysis weather charts are published. Supportstorm (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For now i strongly feel that we are being pedantic if we say that there are three separate tropical depressions, since the JMA has never dropped the overall system despite it being below TD strength at times. The NRL/JTWC track file for 01W Auring also notes that its still active, near Vietnam for now.Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Well this is not a new issue because what about Aere then? Though that is definitely much confusing that this one. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have always told you to use your common sense @Typhoon2013: and in the case of Aere, we currently have the JTWC, HKO etc calling it Aere so we should.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way we can contact the JMA and have them explain their modus operandi for these types of systems, ones that jump back in forth between a depression and a disturbance. I feel like we are being inconsistent here and that would clear things up. Similar with what we did with La Reunion a few years ago. Supportstorm (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to email them but I strongly feel that we should be taking it on a case by case basis, as there are cases where it is the same system that its not. In Aere's case it is pretty clear that it was the same system per the HKO and JTWC but in the case of Jangmi 2015 it isnt the same system.Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just 1 system so far, not 3 (Jan 11)

The two additions are not mentioned at all in JTWC, and the JMA weather map clarifies that the same system has been ongoing since Jan 7. I've monitored both agencies since that date. Notice how the TD traversed a path in exactly the same area as the 2 new systems. So this TD is still active since Jan 7 but extratropical. Agila81 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It was not extratropical but was an area of low pressure and below tropical depression strength.Jason Rees (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For this basin, wouldn't we include them as tropical disturbances? LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Auring Article

Not that this tropical depression needs one, but I'm just wondering if we could make a article on it, because it did have effects in the Philippines. Please do not ridicule me just because I'm bringing up this subject. I'm just asking around. Resolutionism Jun 6, 2017, 4:46 PM

We could make an article on Auring, but the question has to be asked if it is notable enough to have an article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We already have 2017 Visayas and Mindanao floods tho. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In any case, that article seriously needs expanding. The role of Tropical Depression Auring in the floods also needs to be included. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

We could find some additional sources. Other than that, I do not think Auring needs an article by itself.

Current track map

Contents from the JMA website are free to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Thus, should we consider uploading JMA track maps or remain using JTWC track maps? 🐱💬 15:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: So you are saying to switch the tracks from JTWC to JMA? But the JTWC once describes its categories (TD-C5) and people are more familiar with that, as to the 10-min categories because there are different basins and monitoring agencies (different categories). Otherwise we use it in case of 2014's Nakri where we used JMAs. But let's see other people's opinions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a tough one for a number of reasons. Firstly, I would argue that the track maps that JTWC issues are more detailed than the ones that JMA produces. Additionally, the JTWC ones are more colourful and are larger, and thus easier to understand. On the other hand, the JMA is the primary meteorological agency tasked with the duty of issuing these products, and consequently the ones they issue are the official ones. JTWC's products, although reliable, are only support materials and do not constitute anything official. It is sort of an example of the US 'invading' or 'intruding' into other people's business (though I'm happy they do, as I like the JTWC). Also, the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is only for official use with systems in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Pacific, east of the International Date Line. As such, the SSHWS categories serve only as comparisons to the strength of systems in the aforementioned locations, and are assessed using a different methodology—one-minute sustained winds. Again, the use of this method is not the official method of the basin and therefore, as before, only serves to draw comparisons between global systems. All things considered, I think, although a difficult decision, I choose to support the proposed changes relating to this matter. I think it is important that the official windspeeds and their corresponding categories be those of the official meteorological agency (the JMA) and reflect the basin standard. In the event that no JMA maps are available, however, I don't see an issue with using the JTWC materials in place of them. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What I concern is not related to the track maps themselves. The problem is that the JTWC is not the official agency in this basin, and the JMA sometimes upgrades a system to a tropical storm even before the JTWC issues any warning. I like to use the JTWC’s maps, however. 🐱💬 02:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hang on @Meow: how do you know that they are free to use and compile with the licensing regulations on commons? Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been allowed for years. 🐱💬 02:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Aesthetics aside, I would prefer using JMA track maps, since they are official data from the RSMC after all. ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Merbok or Nanmadol?

Ok guys so now Nanmadol has reached peak with winds of 95 km/h (60 mph), tied with Merbok, making it the strongest of the season so far. Although, the JTWC only classifies Nanmadol with winds of 85 km/h (50 mph) while Merbok was much higher with 95. So do we still count both systems as the strongest storm, or do we just count Merbok? I know that we always follow RSMC, but I'm just asking as JTWC has a different scale. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, please disregard this topic. Yes I can't read :P. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As a note, we always follow the RSMC. Since the JMA had put them with the same winds and pressure (at the time), both would've tied for the strongest storm; the JTWC has no bearing on this. — Iunetalk 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Now they are considered as the same intensity again. 🐱💬 06:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Talas affected areas

The Paracel Islands is a perfectly good group of islands. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for not including them in the affected areas. More than one thousand people live there, so it cannot be said that they are insignificant or 'not worthy' of being included. Additionally, the fact that the Paracel Islands are disputed territory between Vietnam and China has absolutely no relevance in a typhoon article. This is not an article about politics. In fact, Paracel Islands was changed to 'South China' by the same person who is using the disputed territory thing as an argument. This shows that person has hardly any rigour or basis in logic in their arguments. Also, South China spans an area of at least 450,000 square kilometers, so using this broad geographical term to refer to only Hainan province and a tiny portion of Guangdong province is utterly ridiculous, and due to the hugely exaggerated area that it conveys to the reader, actually moderately incorrect.

By my count, there are four island groups such as the Paracel Islands included in the affected areas in the 2016 article alone. One of these is a single island in the middle of the Pacific with no one living on it. This clearly, unambiguously and undeniably shows that islands such as the Paracels are fine to be included. The column title says 'Areas affected', not 'Areas affected, excluding those that are not states or countries, those whose ownership is disputed, and those who are insignificant for other unsaid reasons'.

In summary, at the time of writing, Tropical Storm Talas has affected the Paracel Islands, Vietnam, Hainan and Guangdong. Guangxi will likely be added a little later, and possibly Laos as well. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, may I add, the article for Typhoon Ioke in 2006 states that Wake Island was an affected area. It just so happens that this is a disputed territory between the United States and Marshall Islands. This is a featured article. Argument debunked. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I am only here mostly for the China case. First of all, we all know that China is really big so of course we need to cut it down to its regions. If you mention both Hainan and Guanxi, I would already call this "South China". I would rather call it S China to cut it down. This should be taken the same to the Pacific Islands and should either be divided into the Caroline or the Marshall Islands. That is all what I could say for that. Paracel Islands, though, I do not really know with that because I have never seen "Paracel Islands" in the Seasons effects table before. Also this is not a country or state or some sort, but imo I wouladn't really put it in as what the other user said "it is claimed by either both VN and CH". Moreover these islands are not really known to people that much and nobody really knows it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: What the other user said Paracel Islands has been claimed by Vietnam and China and no one really knows about these islands. One more thing there is no point on adding Hainan and Guangdong because it is already part of South China, but I'm sure Talas is going to affect Laos and possibly Thailand since tmd have been issuing warnings in a lot provinces in Thailand about Tropical Storm Talas 004.Berni.B (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment directly about the inclusion of the Paracel islands, but will remind people that the areas affected in SE chart are meant to be broad and cover most places. For example for Cyclone Ofa entries, I would use Polynesia rather than listing all of the countries it affected on the chart. If Tallas does indeed impact China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar, then we could possibly use Indochina instead.Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: A lot of people now add the countries instead of adding "Indochina" but I'm guessing that we will just add the countries I don't think Talas is going to directly affect Myanmar nor Cambodia 004.Berni.B (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For what its worth, I went and added in Indochina and removed Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos and Thailand from the list of areas affected. I did this as we need to have a bit of common sense with the area affected and not list every single island nation separately. This should also help deal with some of @Typhoon2013:'s concerns around the SE Chart being rather large at the end of the season and mine about the article being rather long due to the amount of systems we montior.Jason Rees (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Sounds good. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Omg I'm sorry for a very late reply as your ping somehow did notify me. Yep I agree with this, but I'll just add a note just in case for people who do not know what/where Indochina is (like I did to S. China in the SE). Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Talas Article?

Does anyone think that we should make an article on Tropical Storm Talas? Due to the affects in Indochina and it was still TS on the JMA scale in Laos 004.Berni.B (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 004.Berni.B. I agree. I reckon we should make an article, because Talas was pretty amazing in the fact that it took many hours to weaken from 45 knots upon landfall to 30 knots as a depression over Laos. I'm also of the opinion that having more articles is always a good thing, as it brings more easy-to-access information into the world. I know Typhoon2013 has also expressed interest in making an article about Talas, so I think there's definitely enough support for your position. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, yep. I just need to see its impact and news about it because before I used to make (useless) articles that do not really need a 'full-blown' article itself, especially during the 2013 season and most of those storms affected around the Vietnam area. But for sure I'll try and make one and have a start-up on it ready between the next 2 days. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Stationary Tropical Depression Overland

What is that depression that continues to show overland near Laos and Thailand/Myanmar on the surface maps of the JMA (29 JUL). That couldn't still be Sonca, right?! グリーフォーザー

It wouldn't surpise me if it is Sonca, but we would have to wait until the BT comes out to confirm or deny it i think.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty it is Sonca because there have been lots of reports of flooding over Northeast Thailand from TS Sonca. 004.Berni.B (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Noru page?

Might be necessary soon because for 1, its a C5, and second it is expected to approach Japan as a C4. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

At least start a sandbox until its threat to Japan becomes more clear, organize the information. This way, it would be easier to build up the section in the season article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Just to note that doesn't mean a storm reached to a Cat5 intensity, doesn't mean we really need an article for it. Though I do support for a Noru article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am writing the article and it will be published very soon. 🐱💬 13:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sonca Article

Does anyone think TS Sonca needs an article due to the damage and death toll across Thailand/Cambodia, also because it was a rainmaker in Indochina espiecally Thailand/Sakhon Nakhon. 004.Berni.B (talk) 14:59, 01 August 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I would say that Sonca probably should have one. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Id say that its worth building a sandbox up and seeing where it takes us. However, what I will say is that I generally think the the typhoon season has a lower threshold for articles than say the Atlantic or the South Pacific.Jason Rees (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Which makes sense given that SPAC seasons generally have fewer storms, so the individual sections can handle more content overall. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have created an article for Sonca I haven't fully expanded it so if someone wants fix/expand the page you are more than welcome to 004.Berni.B (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Distances

@Meow: @Jasper Deng: @Jason Rees: @Yellow Evan: In the "Distance" for the current infobox, should we now switch to the JMA locations since they are the RSMC? For years we have been using the JTWC and just realized that the JMA and the JTWC coordinates are slightly different. If we are to switch to the JMA distances, then what source do we use to find the distances because the JMA does not mention distance locations in their advisories. I really don't mind what to follow tbh, it's just that the JTWC distance locations are much easier to find. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: It is original research to measure distances. Unlike ACE, which is well-defined and uses a very specific formula, distance on Earth's curved surface is nontrivial to calculate. See the differential geometry of surfaces for more on this. Thus we should not be using distance vectors not explicitly published by an agency.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So what you really are saying is to stick with the JTWC distances? Even if both agencies have slightly different coordinates?Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

JMA does mention the distance in Japanese if a storm is near the territories of Japan. It should be better if we can refer to an agency which is the closest to a storm, so readers can receive a much useful distance.  🐱💬 05:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Can I see the source please? This is so I can help update WPac storms from now on. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is actually published in their Japanese website when a storm is near a Japanese island or town. 🐱💬 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Oh ok. But I'm talking about storms here in general, like Hato where it is near the PH. @ChocolateTrain: Did discussed this to me a while ago and he did have a point there, and he started to calculate the distance from JMA coordinates from a site idk of. But again, as to what @Jasper Deng: stated above ^, "it is OR to measure distances". Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Measuring the distance every 3 or 6 hours takes us too much time to maintain the article. If agencies can provide us a specified value, I don’t see why we need to measure by ourselves. 🐱💬 10:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it is original research to measure distances, as its not like the land masses are moving so much year on year to cause us anything to worry about. I will also note that there are various distance calculators out there such as NOAA and I personally feel that its more wrong to be calculating ACE. @Typhoon2013: Generally speaking as long as you have a source for the co-ordinates you dont need a source for the distances - just make sure your rounding it to the nearest 5 though.Jason Rees (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with JR here - with the condition that we use a long-latitude calculator obviously. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Such calculators have to take into account the curvature of the Earth's surface. Given that the calculation of geodesics is no trivial affair, I would expect few calculators to implement it exactly. Thus we should leave that to the agencies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Though if we were to use a 'calculator' and follow JMA coordinates, what source do I use because I could not find it. Both you and JD do have a point, but again I really don't know right now and it is a tie atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@JasperDeng: I would personally be very surprised indeed, if Google had not factored in geodesics, especially since Google Earth is used by the warning centres AFAIK. @Typhoon2013: A few of the senior editors and myself personally prefer using Google Earth to calclate distances, however, you can use whatever source you like - just input the co-ordinates. For example here is the NHC's distance calcualtor.Jason Rees (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue the NHC's long-lat calculator as reliable as the figures the NHC puts out in its product, so I don't see any problem with using it. Just leave a note when it comes to historic storms. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

China press

Especially to @Jasper Deng: and @Meow:, how much do you trust the China Press site? I just want to know because this says that Hato's damage is 80b ringgit, which equates to US$18.7b in damages, if my calculations are correct? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a trust-worthy newspaper (second best-selling Chinese daily in Malaysia) established in 1946, yet I think resources from Hong Kong, Macau, and mainland China would be more proper. 🐱💬 06:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Well ok if that's the case, then Hato would make it the costliest typhoon on record now from the site. I'm sure my calculations are right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is 8 billion not 80 billion. 億/亿 in Chinese means 100 million not 1 billion. 🐱💬 07:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: This is the reason why we need people like you who understands other languages and have an understanding about them. Thanks so much for the clarification. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-generation pt.3

@Meow: @ChocolateTrain: @Jason Rees: Even though this is the third time I have talked about re-generating systems, I don't think I have mentioned this though: if the JTWC re-designated it. So the TD from 28/8 - 29/8 was 90W by JTWC, although now (30/8 06Z) the JMA re-upgraded the system to a TD, though the JTWC re-designated it as 91W. Do we classify these as separate systems? Especially how there is a source, which is from the trackfile. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don’t really know how to deal with this. They are de facto the same system but de jure the different ones. To JMA, they are absolutely the two different systems as the agency never included LPA in the best track data. 🐱💬 09:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep I would consider this system or this type of scenario as two separate systems. Again, the JTWC had it as separate (90W and 91W) while for the LPA mentioned by JMA from 29/8 to 30/8, we will never know if they are actually two different LPAs. Though as discussed previously, Aere's case was not like this as JTWC considered it the same system Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The question has to be asked based on what text product are you considering them the same? I have looked through the JTWC STWA's and would rule it to be a completely different system for now.Jason Rees (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Meow: I think they're different systems, though it is a very strange situation. The JTWC ceased trackfile entries on 90W at 12:00 UTC on August 29, which is exactly the same time at which they initiated the trackfile for 91W. However, 90W's final location was 19.1N 125.4E, whereas 91W's initial location was 17.6N 123.5E. This suggests that the two disturbances, although by chance dissipating and forming at exactly the same time, where in fact different systems, highlighted by the fact they were around 250 km from each other at the same time. So, I reckon we should count them as separate systems. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yep and that's exactly what I said. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Current storm information

@ChocolateTrain: @Tropical2017: @Meow: I believe we should put back the "Current Storm information" in the PTS articles again. This is to keep it constant and to give more information that people will understand. I will start adding it in after this edit. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Good idea. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is completely a bad idea. When there are not enough editors to maintain, the season article is like a trash can. 🐱💬 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, but for this case, I may reject. This is a good idea and I can update these instead and I'm fine with that. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If we do it for other basins, we should do it here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If editors cannot keep maintaining on time, it will definitely look like trash. 🐱💬 13:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Yet the fact is that people cannot update on time. Readers just receive very outdated information. 🐱💬 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Yes I know about the past few days, but I certainly did not feel good. But I wonder where ChocolateTrain was? Hmmm, I guess uploading more bad-quality images, especially when saying he wanted to "help". You can't just leave everything to person. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Super Typhoon Lan Article?

I think it will be a big storm for Japan, similar to Noru. I think a article might be needed, or a draft can begin on one. EBGamingWiki (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very surprised there's not already one, considering the amount of news coverage this storm is receiving for its size and strength. It's expected to make very direct landfall so an article will be needed soon. I've started Draft:Typhoon Lan, but if it works better to edit it from the Wikiproject's sandbox space we can move it there. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am writing Typhoon Lan (2017). 🐱💬 08:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Also could we mention how Lan had a gale-wind diameter of 1,900 nm, which is tied with Typhoon Tip? Digital Typhoon says so. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try to mention more details about that. 🐱💬 09:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Typhoon Lan (2017) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Article for tropical storm kai-tak (Urduja)

Can you write an article for Kai-tak? With A 1 billion peso damage PAGASA might retire it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.10.131 (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We already have one. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agaton (possibly the future 01W or Bolaven)

It is presumed that agencies would recognise the system as a part of the 2018 season. Should we move the section to the 2018 season article or still make it stay? 🐱💬 12:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Meow: The section stays in both seasons, however, too what degree is debatable. I quite like the idea of Agaton going into OS in 2017 and 2018 being the main section. Let’s wait and see what happens though.Jason Rees (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As JMA has started issuing tropical cyclone warnings to Agaton, the chance of being 1801 is now very high. 🐱💬 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if it becomes 1801 Meow, I see no reason why 2017 should not have at least a sentence or two in OS, on a system that developed during 2017.Jason Rees (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. Should we make Agaton become a main section of the 2018 season and describe it within the Other storms part of the 2017 season now? Even its TCFA from JTWC uses 9918 as the filename. 🐱💬 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I have checked some systems in history and there were a hurricane and a typhoon (both named Alice) forming in December but upgraded to a tropical storm in January, and their sections stay in the previous hurricane and typhoon season article. Shouldn’t we follow suit for the future Bolaven? 🐱💬 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees and Meow: I did the same thing as the 1978/79 seasons where I added a note mentioning that Agaton formed in the previous season etc. Though otherwise as JR stated, then that means the 2018 season has started? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:01, January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the 2018 season has started. The use of putting 01W in this season would confuse some readers who are not weather geeks. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Meow: Alice 1978-79 is a very good example of the situation we are in, whereby it was a JMA tropical depression for 12 hours, before being classified as 01W, 7901 and Alice during the new year. Having looked at the BT databases and the JTWC ATCR for 1979, I would say that it is wrongly judged as being a part of the 1978 season and that the main section should be plonked into 1979. However, I would also say that it should be given a sentence or two in OS during 1978. Alice 1954-55 has been reanalysed to be a part of the 1954 season and should have been named a TS during 1954 but due to the technology available at the time it wasn't named till the 2nd. As a result, I stick with my original opinon that it should be put into OS in 2017.Jason Rees (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It is now Agaton of 2018, 01W of 2018, and may be 1801 (Bolaven) later. I personally support moving them to the year which they belong to. 🐱💬 20:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Meow and Jason Rees: Although, I just noticed this. For sure in its BT, JMA would still classify this being formed around the 30th or 31st. So for me, the JMA has this being "part" of the 2017 season, though because both the JTWC and PAGASA classified this on Jan 1, then it's part of the 2018 season from both of those agencies. So what I am saying I guess, is that this is part of both seasons, although the 2018 season hasn't started, the JTWC, PAGASA and JMA TS stats could be added in. Wouldn't be weird as well where the 2018 season started on December 30, 2017? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC) (Edited)

Actually, I will agree with JR as what he did in the 1978/79 PTS articles where the system was mainly considered to be part of the real season, though the dates were considered part of the previous season. I'll do it now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the dates of 1979 but kept the 1978 dates the same. This is because Alice is a part of both seasons and we are saying that the last system of 1978 dissipated on January 15, 1979 which is the truth. As for stats, im not sure we shouldnt consider Agaton a JMA TD in both seasons, even though it developed in 2017. Remember that Nature doesnt like our human made boundaries.Jason Rees (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: That's what I did in the 2018 season stats (forecasts table). I have left the JMA TCs at 0. And the storm shouldn't be part of the 2018 SE table, and should be kept for the 2017 one instead. Though, you've seen what I did? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Put it in the stats and SE chart for both seasons.Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It will be absolutely a system of 2018 for JMA, as the agency gives the designation number only for tropical storms instead of tropical depressions. 🐱💬 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Noru

I dont think Noru should've been downgraded it was a clear C5 like Lan and the JMA needs to learn what C5s are

Please get your facts straight before commenting. The JMA didn't downgrade it to a C4 or rate it as a C5 on the SSHWS or the Australian scale which is the numbered scale that the JMAs windspeeds are better matched too since their both based on 10-minute winds. Anyway it was the JTWC who downgraded to a 4 on the SSHWS based on whatever evidence they had to hand during the 2017 post analysis.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Replacements for Urduja and Vinta

Weren't these supposed to be out by now? We're 3 days from 2019 and nothing's happened. Is something up? - Master0Garfield (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a source for PAGASA retiring Urduja and Vinta? Jason Rees (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem. It seems they might have forgotten to retire the names or something. That or someone just forgot to add them in. - Master0Garfield (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)