Wikipedia

Talk:Timeline of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Notify change??? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please allow me to extend the range of the graphical timeline (located at the lead section o the article) so that more names can be seen??? I can't see the name "Fung-wong" on the timeline... -Pika ten10 (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why mention PAGASA? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've asked it a number of times, but I have to ask it again. Why should PAGASA's upgrades and downgrades be included in the timeline.

For those unfamiliar with this basin, RSMC-Tokyo does not have universal power like NHC or CPHC. Here in East Asia, the NMHS of each country/territory determines its own upgrade/downgrade and its own terminology. What PAGASA calls a 60-knot TS can be simultaneously described by HKO as a 65-knot typhoon, by JMA as a 55-knot STS, and by Taiwan's CWB as a Qingdu Taifeng (light typhoon) or a Zhongdu Taifeng (moderate typhoon). Inside Japan, in Japanese, you won't even hear the terminology "STS" or the international name (given by JMA) of the storm--they only use the number.

Here in Wikipedia, we include JMA because it is the official agency for the basin, we include JTWC because it's the only one-minute authority (whose method of analyzing storms makes them comparable to other US, Aussie and French basins, beside being the former name-giver), and PAGASA because it gives a different name widely used in a very populous, English-speaking country.

Following this logic, we should not include any PAGASA's actions not related to upgrading a disturbance to a TD (thereby giving a new name). If we include PAGASA's up/downgrading to/from TD-TS-TY, then why not all other agencies? If we include PAGASA's final advisory as a storm leaves their AOR as it moves toward Vietnam or China, then why not a recurving storm heading toward Japan as it leaves HKO's AOR?

I don't know how long this sentence has been here, but it's in paragraph two of "Timeline": "It should be noted that the timeline does not deal with the end of PAGASA-monitored storms; if the JTWC or the JMA did not monitor such a storm it should be assumed that the storm did not cause major damage or make landfall, and simply dissipated or left the area of jurisdiction of PAGASA."

Can anyone enlighten me on the reasoning of any other view? HkCaGu (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

We can also mention HKO here if you like. (I think we have some pieces of HKO info here, and it is not said in the notes of the timeline about what to do with other NMHS's info other than PAGASA's, including HKO's.) But I'd like to make some changes... If a storm exits PAGASA's area of responsibility, then we'll mention them here, so that everyone shall be notified that PAGASA, after that time, shall never monitor that particular storm anymore (unless it goes back to PAGASA's AoR again). IMHO, I think many of us shall be confused that PAGASA still will monitor that storm until it dissipates. Thus, I think it is necessary to say up to what time PAGASA monitored that particular storm. You know, PAGASA has limited geographical coverage. We can do that on HKO info, too, since it only has a 500-mile coverage from Hong Kong. Also, I included PAGASA upgrades and downgrades (specially for those storms that did severe damage to the Philippines, such as Halong and Fengshen) since it monitors many storms every year hitting the Philippines, and I think we can too include HKO upgrades and downgrades (if they have) since many storms approach near Hong Kong.
Thus, I also propose deleting that statement you quoted... -Pika ten10 (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
It seems that you totally missed the point and do not understand the situation at all. I'm not promoting adding HKO. I'm saying that PAGASA is only one of many national agencies that upgrade and downgrade independently from each other. If you want to add HKO's action, then you should add China's CMA , Taiwan's CWB, South Korea's KMA, Macau's SMG, Thailand's TMD and whoever else who issue TC bulletins. This is of course ridiculous!
All the agencies have overlapping AoRs. HKO's AoR is 10-30N 105-125E. KMA and CMA issue bulletins all the way out to the date line. In a regional sense, HKO's AoR boundary and PAGASA's AoR boundary are meaningless--and by meaningless I mean we cannot afford to mention each TC entering and exiting each agency's AoR. Only one such circumstance is meaningful--when a TC enter PAGASA's AoR or when one forms within PAGASA's AoR. The significance? The PAGASA name assignment! In summary boxes we only list JMA's wind and pressure and JTWC's wind. There is no need and we should not include upgrades, downgrades and dissipations other than JMA and JTWC. HkCaGu (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Get rid of the PAGASA Stuff except for GENER which has to be retained as PAGASA were the only ones who monitored it Jason Rees (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you say that the "naming is meaningful", isn't it correct to say that the de-naming process is also meaningful??? It is like this: if you have the start (the naming), then mention the ending (the de-naming). For this case, PAGASA voids a particular storm its designated local name if it exits PAGASA AoR or dissipates within PAGASA AoR. Thus, what shall we conclude?? Include the time by which PAGASA declared a storm out of its AoR (that is, the issuing of last PAGASA advisory for every particular storm that goes inside its AoR)... -Pika ten10 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is no such thing as "de-naming". When a TD becomes a TS, you grab a name from the list and stick it in for a storm. It becomes part of history. PAGASA names are almost never mentioned by media outside of the Philippines. When a storm leaves PAGASA AoR, the Philippine media will continue to use the PAGASA name and the international media will continue to use the international name. Three days after a major disaster in the Philippines, the local media will not switch to the international name. PAGASA final-ing a storm does not carry the same "meaningfulness" as the initial bulletin. We include PAGASA name so we tie all information together (PAGASA name, WMO name, JMA number, JTWC number, JMA name) so people from various countries do not get confused, not because PAGASA's Bulletin #1 has any significance. If PAGASA only names TYs and not TDs and TSs, thereby always much later than JMA or JTWC, we wouldn't care what time PAGASA names it. HkCaGu (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you are mentioning the initial warning, then it is equally important to say the last warning. For example, if you are warned that a thief is getting to your house, and then that thief actually grabbed at your house, the police shall ask you when was the first time you were warned as well as the last time you were warned. In this case, the storm marauding the PAGASA AoR is analogous to to the thief which grabbed your house. And PAGASA issues warnings for its AoR to prepare against that storm as someone has warned you to prepare against that thief. As for the upgardes, I deem consensus, but I can't agree on you for the final PAGASA warning matter for that reason. -Pika ten10 (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let me rephrase/repeat this point again: If PAGASA did not give a distinct name to each storm that 90 million people use, we wouldn't care if a storm enters PAGASA's AoR or gets upgraded by PAGASA. If we include PAGASA based on upgrade/enter AoR alone, we must then include the half dozen other agencies/nations some with larger population. PAGASA is here as a routine mention only because of that name, and a storm leaving AoR does not carry that significance. HkCaGu (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bots exclusion template edit

This article has the bots exclusion template ( {{bots}} ) applied to it. This template should generally be a temporry fix until the article or bot can be changed, to resolve the underlying problem. Please explain here why the template is being used so that the article or bot can be fixed if possible. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 7 September 2008 (GMT).

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Timeline of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 50 external links on Timeline of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_2008_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=1211193126"