Talk:2007 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad reference

Reference #1 gives info about the EPac, not the WPac. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html says that the season is from July to November. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

season is year-a-round.. cyclone is minimum during Feb-mid Mar and the main season is from Jul-Nov. - グリフオーザー 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD on discussion archives

Hi, just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tropical cyclone discussion archives. Up for deletion are all the archives of discussion about tropical cyclones on the seasonal pages, as opposed to the archives of Wikipedia-related discussion. See the nomination for the rationale for deletion. The thoughts of contributors here be appreciated on the discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Why doesn't the infobox have the active template? ---CWY2190TC 04:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Include Cosme?

It did, after all, very briefly make it into the West Pacific as a depression before dissipating. —Cuiviénen 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not from JTWC, and it only appeared once on the JMA's METAREA bulletin. JMA commonly declares systems like these TDs, so we don't include them. – Chacor 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we say on the Epac Page that it made it to the Wpac But it was only Reconised by the JMA as a Tropical Depression Jason Rees 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my point. Weak systems like these are occasionally called TDs by the JMA, but in reality no agency issues just one advisory on any system (there always is a second one at the very least saying it has dissipated). The JMA commonly does this, which is why we don't include JMA weak TDs in this article. A JMA weak TD often never goes beyond INVEST stage, which effectively is what the remnants of Cosme were. I don't think it's necessary to add that to the PHS article, it'd be like saying Cosme made it to the WPac as an INVEST. Just to further illustrate my point: last year 02C or 03C (can't remember which, might have been both) made it to the WPac as a weak JMA TD after the CPHC had declared it dissipated. – Chacor 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The JTWC had the remnants of Cosme as a tropical disturbance [15-20 kts] before it was marked completely dissipated in the WPAC. - グリフオーザー 04:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't cover disturbances. – Chacor 05:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Usagi prose

So many of the updates have not been archived to it will be tough to make an entire prose. Any ideas? ---CWY2190TC 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know i have been trying to Archive JTWC ones and i will do some of the Guam ones now and maybe the JMA latest one Jason Rees 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

whilst trying to Archive the guam advisorys it came up with internal Error any ideas??

I counted 17 JMA advisories here. ---CWY2190TC 23:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

really? active for nearly 4 days now should be around 32 advisories.. since JMA releases at least 8 advisories in a day..

unless I am not thinking correctly. - グリフオーザー 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
All of them aren't there but some are. ---CWY2190TC 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a program that automatically downloads JMA advisories every 15 minutes. I can upload a batch with the Usagi data in them. However, you won't be able to <ref> them, just get the information from them. -- RattleMan 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Here is all the JMA data the program captured from the 28th to the present. The first few files on the 28th are blank; later in the day the TD first appears. -- RattleMan 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote up the prose using the WX-TROPL mailing list archives, since no one webcited the JMA advisories (station is RJTD, heading is WTPQ). --Coredesat 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Usagi

this may be in the wrong place but Ive just finished updating using the Jtwc advisorys and the jma one. Now it looks like the jma advisory @ 21.00 is the last advisory can some one confirm if this is the case??Jason Rees 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

nope, the JMA would have marked Extratropical Low at 21:00 UTC advisory. - グリフオーザー 02:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sepat sandbox

Just as a heads up, I'm working on a sandbox article for Sepat. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is expected to hit anytime now, so if there's an article, we'd be happy to help. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is expected to hit us tomorrow with the current forecast having the eye pass very close to where I live. I will contribute as much as I can - unless the power goes out - linking relevant Taiwan media information in English and Mandarin. ludahai 魯大海 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why primarly rely on Japan as main source

Why does this page primarily rely on Japan as the main source of data? The current Super Typhoon is closer to Taiwan than to Japan and the numbers from the Taiwan CWB are different than those coming from Japan. ludahai 魯大海 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Japan is the RSMC for the Northwest Pacific. They are the official agency...all others are unofficial. ---CWY2190TC 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Note, we can and should be linking to the CWB when Taiwan is threatened (like we link PAGASA or the HKO), but this isn't 2007 Taiwan typhoon season, this is for the whole basin. So while we can and should link to the various National Met Services, the overall information we use should still be the top-level agency for the basin, which is the JMA. – Chacor 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan, to my knowledge, is not a full member of the JMA. What makes Taiwan's CWB unofficial? It is official here in Taiwan! ludahai 魯大海 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The WMO-designated RSMC overseer for the region is Japan's Meteorological Agency. For every country within the region, their respective national met service is official within their own land and waters. Therefore you in Taiwan should continue to listen to the CWB, just as how someone in the Philippines should listen to PAGASA. However, for the whole region - which is what this article is for, the whole Pacific west of the date line - the JMA's analysis is the top-level. I hope that clears it up a little. – Chacor 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
JMA is no higher than Taiwan's CWB. Taiwan's does not recognize the JMA as being above it as it is denied membership. As the storm is approaching Taiwan waters, Taiwan's data is likely to be more accurate and most certainly is more current. ludahai 魯大海 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, our PAGASA gets its forecasts wrong, so JMA may actually have more accurate forecasts. --Howard the Duck 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We are supposedly NOT reporting forecasts, or I would have already included the forcast that this storm will hit Taiwan tomorrow morning. We are only reporting data. No offense to the Philippines, but Taiwan has far more advanced capabilities than the Philippines has. ludahai 魯大海 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I betting the JMA has better capabilities, despite the distance. --Howard the Duck 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
On what basis? Taiwan's capabilities are pretty good and we have the advantage (or disadvantage as the case may be) of proximity. Would you continue to hold that he JMA has better capabilities once the storm has made landfall in Taiwan tomorrow morning? ludahai 魯大海 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, all weather agencies of the world look at the same satellite images, so there's no way for any nation to say they're better when distance from the eye is the sole criterion. --Howard the Duck 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not the 2007 Taiwan Typhoon season. It is the 2007 Pacific typhoon season. The JMA is official. ---CWY2190TC 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan's CWB is also official. ludahai 魯大海 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the CWB offer in place of the JMA? Do they have the same data? --Howard the Duck 03:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The data is SLIGHTLY different. The major contribution that can be gained by using Taiwan data is that it is updated more frequently as it is now in the Taiwan area. As it gets closer, various advisories and the characteristics of the storm are sure to be more accurate. As it is, there is not a significant difference in that respect at this time. ludahai 魯大海 05:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We won't be putting specific advisories like what the PAGASA uses (Storm Signals 1-4, etc.), as for frequency of updates, I'm no meteorologist, but the most important data IMHO are wind speed, gustiness and direction of the storm. The only data I can think that could be Taiwan-specific, or any country for that matter, are the fatalities and the damages. --Howard the Duck 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Not for our purposes. While it might be official for Taiwan (I don't know, I haven't read the debate), for international purposes is is the JMA, which was appointed by the WMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't you just love a clusterfuck. JMA, and to an extent, JTWC are official across the Northwestern Pacific basin. While local warnings from the CWB should definitely be included, let's keep the position based on the world-wide centers, as they're the ones who publish the best track which we'll eventually use. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is CURRENT information. Which information is the MOST CURRENT? Taiwan's CWB! ludahai 魯大海 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you vouch for the accuracy of the CWB information? The world-wide meteorological community uses the JMA positions, and their practices are well-documented. And, oh, CWB's position info is unofficial in the rest of the world. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Vouch for the information? Where is the storm now? Approaching Taiwan. WHat is the relevant government authority in this area? The Taiwan CWB. JMA has no authority over Taiwan or its territory. Its information is useful, but at this point, Taiwan's information is MORE TIMELY and thus, in the effort of presenting the LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION, it should be included! ludahai 魯大海 07:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan's CWB is currently presenting the latest available information. As the section is "current storm information", what is better - dated information from the JMA or CURRENT information from the weather bureau of the country fixing to get slammed by the storm. Furtermore, it gives relative location in comparison to the location most likly to get hit, giving a better approximation of how close the storm is to landfall. JMA does NOT give this. ludahai 魯大海 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of WP Taiwan

I am including the WP Taiwan banner in this article for two reasons. One, it clearly falls within the scope of the wikiproject which reads as follows: This WikiProject is intended as a politically-neutral platform for all contributors interested in increasing Wikipedia's coverage of Taiwan-related articles, including but not limited to: history (of all time periods), culture, people, military, geography, sports, science, politics and religion. The areas of geography and science are clearly covered by this article and it clearly pertains to Taiwan, as well as other countries. If members of other WikiProjects wish to include it, this is their perogative. It is NOT the perogative of a NON member of the project to delete it. A nested banner for national wikiprojects IS appropriate if other wish to add their own wikiprojects to this article and leave the Tropical Systems wikiproject UNNESTED. DO NOT delete the WikiProject Taiwan banner without consulting our project. Thank you. ludahai 魯大海 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is NOT the perogative of a NON member of the project to delete it."
At the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
Wikipedia is freely editable. – Chacor 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I can include CWB data at will. This is a project template on a talk page. You have no right to remove it. ludahai 魯大海 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have any extra rights to include it either. If you are threatening to violate wikipedia policy by "[including] CWB data at will" the relevant people will be informed. – Chacor 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How many times can you contradict yourself in one day? The current arrangement is fine. Too bad you have to take an unreasonable position from the start before accepting this. ludahai 魯大海 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO it should be the link only. We put up the NWS Guam warnings link but not the advisory. ---CWY2190TC 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, Taiwan's numbers are THE MOST UP TO DATE They should be included. ludahai 魯大海 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats why we include the link. ---CWY2190TC 05:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The link is from the ENglish page, which is not always the most current. I am getting the information from the CHinese language page which most users can't read. I can. Providing that information should be allowed and it may even be more relevant to people who live in the area. ludahai 魯大海 08:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Then include the Chinese link. We include the japanese link from the JMA. ---CWY2190TC 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Most people can't read it. ludahai 魯大海 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to budge in, but you two have given me quite a few laughs today. ---CWY2190TC 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad this has had SOME value to someone.  :) As for the current set-up, this is reasonable. Why can't Chacor see reason before making a big fight out of it. Chacor, this is NOT your personal page. ludahai 魯大海 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possessive attitude

I can't believe the possessive attitude of some on here. I present the MOST CURRENT information available and people in the project are so taken aback by this that they have to gang up on the one presenting BETTER INFORMATION. This is NOT what Wikipedia is all about. Rather sad in my humble opinion. ludahai 魯大海 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it better? Wikipedia is about providing official and sourced information. The Taiwan CWB is not the official center for the Northwest Pacific basin. If you revert the edit one more time you will be reported for breaking the three revert rule. There is a consensus and you are the minority. ---CWY2190TC 07:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
CWB information is sourced. It is also official information on a typhoon that is CURRENTLY affecting Taiwan. I am not proposing the REMOVAL of any information. YOU are doing the removing. I am merely including the addition of ADDITIONAL and MORE CURRENT information. Note, I have not included windspeed information, merely MORE CURRENT information about were the storm is and a better land fix which is closer to where the storm will actually hit than JMA is. IN both of these respects, the CWB information is CLEARLY BETTER. On that basis, it should be included. ludahai 魯大海
Why is the CWB information better? Do they have better equipment? Do they have better meteorologists? ---CWY2190TC 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is better because it is MORE CURRENT! ludahai 魯大海 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as a bit ironic that you're complaining about possessive attitudes... – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that I am arguing for the inclusion of more information and not taking it away, this argument doesn't wash. ludahai 魯大海 08:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"You're trying to own the page." "Yes, but I'm adding more content, so it doesn't count!" Apples and oranges, friend. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed more current but it seems that will further clutter up the page... Readers might not be able to grasp so many numbers of the distances and positioning at once, it might get confusing, maybe. Also, JMA's info updates every 3 hours, it's not too bad... --typhoonchaser 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Same info given (10-minute winds) and location. JMA is official. JMA also does hourly bulletins when it threatens Taiwan - because of the outer Okinawan islands. – Chacor 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Where are the updates? This is a minimal threat to Okinawa as it is hitting Taiwan further south. As of this time, Taiwan's information is generally more current. ALso, the RELATIVE positioning is more relevant because it is a better indication of how far the storm is from landfall. I am sorry you can't see this. I will stop fighting on this article because I have already created another article that I am working on and will soon link to this article. The inclusion of Taiwan data on the article I am currently working on CAN NOT be questioned at this point in the storm. ludahai 魯大海 08:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you might considering working with Hurricanehink on that, he's started a sandbox article here. --typhoonchaser 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ludahai knows about the sandbox. He offered to help Hink. Creation of Typhoon Sepat (2007) here is blatant disruption. – Chacor 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to be reasonable. I have relevant information. You won't let me put it here. The article I have started is ENTIRELY relevant as is the information I have put in it thus far. I really DID NOT want to do this, but you left me with no choice. ludahai 魯大海 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I told you all about it, I included your project's template, and have linked it to this article. I think this shows that I am trying to work in good faith. Let's make it a good article TOGETHER with as much information from ALL sources that we can bring to bear. ludahai 魯大海 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this essentially a POV fork? You can't own this article, so you'll make another one? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding two sentences with MORE CURRENT information is hardly "owning" the article. The article I have started IS relevant and current. I invite ALL to help, as at least one already has. As I said, let's stop fighting and focus on editing. ludahai 魯大海 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SPINOUT.
– Chacor 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<indent>Sigh. It seems like some POV forking is going on here; After the storm is over it is likely that the sandbox article will be moved over the article. More current does not imply better. If we update the information every time one of the NMCs (that includes the CWB) that is monitoring the storm releases a warning, we will be updating very frequently and more significantly the storms location will be moving erratically. By using a single source, the storms motion will be accurately represented by updates. {{HurricaneWarning}} says: "Information in this article may not be current or applicable to your area. Residents of areas affected by {{{1}}} are advised to seek information from the respective authorities." Now doesn't just tagging it with that seem more appropriate than including everything and making the article illegible? If we include one NMC, we do not take a POV view only if we include them all; if we exclude any we are taking a particular POV. Ultimately, linking to the CWB but not the CMA is taking a POV (like anything to do with Taiwan...). This is only about current storm information (and storm history after it is over), the other sections do not have this problem - there the more the better. Do we need someone to write WP:NOTWARNING?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some people don't know when to quit. I started an article that CLEARLY fits into WikiProject Taiwan. You may interpret it as you like. As it is, it IS a valid spinoff article, one that was already planned and given its current nature is most certainly warrented. It falls under TWO Wikiprojects. ludahai 魯大海 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Content/POV fork created to avoid consensus. Fairly obvious. You don't have consensus for your addition, get one, or get over it. – Chacor 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop this

Cease fire. I will focus my efforts to contributing the the Typhoon Sepat (2007) article. This fighting is useless and counterproductive. Frankly, as the storm is bearing down on my home, I have other things to worry about. ludahai 魯大海 09:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_1&oldid=1136285177"