Talk:2019 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Concerns about this article

Emphasis on cost in opening sentence

I am concerned that the opening sentence emphasizes the cost of the season. While that's a relevant metric, there are a number of relevant metrics, many of which dessert mention ahead of cost. In an article about a specific season, a reader may be interested to see how the season compares to other seasons. Measures such as:

1. number of storms
2. number of storms by strength
3. number of storms making landfall
4. aggregate intensity (ACE)

are all metrics that are comparable over time. While cost is important, and deserves mention in the lead, it shouldn't be the opening metric. It's not comparable over time, partly because it is a nominal, not real dollars, and it doesn't adjust for increased cost of material.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing issues

The second sentence of season summaries starts

The first was considerably inactive

. after examining the edit history I think this resulted from botched editing and should say

The first half was considerably inactive

. However, while that change might be trivial, it begs the question of sourcing. What reliable source says that the first half of the year in 2019 was "considerably inactive"?S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The biggest problem that this article suffers from is a lack of people who have the time, energy and experience to work it and the several sub-articles it so desperately needs. That is why you are seeing a lot of grammatical errors or errors where people have taken information directly from Facebook, satellite imagery, copied it from section to another without checking to ensure its true, etc etc. However, I maybe able to give it some love over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, that would be great. I have too many irons in the fire to spend much time on this, so I hope you can give it some of the attention it needs. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Stub

I can't believe this! Would someone care to add a few more sources to this article? 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 12:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If there's one sentence for each named storm, it's a start by longstanding precedent. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted section blanking on the principle that some info unless extensively dubious/false is better than none at all. In consistent with the criteria I've outlined above, I upgraded it back to start. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Help this page!

This page needs attention, in these areas:

1. Shorten the page (readable prose size >60kb)
2. Add more citations
3. Add more content
4. Rewrite the Other systems section
5. Shorten the bloated Season Summary section

You are welcome to add more ways in this article can be improved. These are the five I can think of. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 11:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Halong article?

It is very late now for this, but I believe Halong should totally have an article, despite not touching land. AwesomeHurricaneBoss (Talk with me!) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Halong

Do you guys favor of a standalone page about Typhoon Halong? CycloneEditor (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycloneEditor: There is currently consensus not to. If you see the archives of this page, you will see heated discussion about the Halong article. Currently, editors think that Typhoon Halong should not have an article since it did not affect land. You are welcome to create a draft at Draft:Typhoon Halong (2019), and submit it for approval via Wikipedia:Articles for creation or the WikiProject talk page, but an article will probably never be created about Halong.

If you have any questions, about Halong or just about Wikipedia, I'll be happy to help. Just "bawk to me" here. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)