This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Australia Low‑importance 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Melanesia: Papua New Guinea / Solomon Islands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Solomon Islands (assessed as Low-importance).

ID	Date (ACST)	TC Name	Source
01U	2020-11-24	*Bongoyo
02U	2020-12-05	--	TCR
03U	2020-12-15	--
04U	2020-12-22	--
05U	2021-01-02	Imogen	BT Database
06U	2021-01-05	--	BT Database
07U	2021-01-13	Joshua	BT Database
08U	2021-01-15	--	TCR
09U	2021-01-17	Kimi	BT Database
10U	2021-01-18	--	TCR
11U	2021-01-25	Lucas	BT Database
12U	2021-01-25	--	TCR
--	2021-02-06	--
--	2021-02-18	--
15U	2021-02-23	Marian	BT Database
16U	?	--
17U	2021-02-28	Niran	BT Database
18U	2021-03-10	--
21U	2021-03-21	--	21U
22U	2021-03-29	Seroja	BT Database
23U	2021-04-02	Odette	BT Database
24U	2021-04-06	--	TCR
--	2021-04-09	*13F
--	2021-05-31	--

Tropical Cyclone Outlooks: BMKG

BOM: Western // Northern // Eastern

JTWC: Indian Ocean // South Pacific Ocean

Tropical Cyclone Ocean Warnings:

BMKG: 01 // 02

BOM: Western 1 // Western 2 // Northern 1 // Northern 2 // Eastern 1 // Eastern 2

JTWC (South Indian Ocean): 01 // 02 // 03

JTWC (South Pacific Ocean): 01 // 02 // 03

Tropical Cyclone Technical Bulletins:

BOM: Western 1 // Western 2 // Northern 1 // Northern 2 // Eastern 1 // Eastern 2

Archives: BMKG // JTWC

BOM: Western // Northern // Eastern

BOM analysis, including unpublished BOM designations: BUFR // ECMWF validator

As how the section is displayed, I am dissatisfied with the content. Indian Ocean Dipole is not mentioned in any of the given references (NIWA and BOM), so this should go. The sentence starting with "This meant that ocean temperatures within the region were near to warmer than average..." is vague and I don't see this in either ref on the article. A sentence talking about the average to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures to the north of Australia having an influence on this outlook should be on the article as it is cited in the BOM ref. Now, regarding regional boundaries: as it stands, the article poorly explains the boundaries. Only two longitudes given for each region on the table is vague and explains it poorly. Not good enough. An explanation of the regional boundaries should be on the prose, as how currently an explanation of the whole region is on the prose – "the region as a whole between 90°E and 160°E". The prose must also explain the boundaries for each of the regions, namely Western region, Northwestern sub-region, Northern region and Eastern region. There is no link to other Wikipedia pages explaining these boundaries. I checked if tropical cyclone basins did tell about these regions, it did not. On the table "(1969-70 - 2019-20)" reads awkwardly and I believe the dashes should be longer. The article title itself has 2020–21 with a long dash. Now, the NIWA forecast is confusing. The prediction of 8 to 10 on the table reads in conjunction with the stats from BOM (record high, record low and average). They are not defined in the same region. NIWA is only a portion in the region and has a big portion outside the region. They are not consistent and I believe the NIWA stat should go. The info about "Eastern South Pacific" on the table is outside the region, that should go. Similarly, the last paragraph talking about the NIWA outlook is on the same matter and it is confusing. Only a portion within the basin and also counts a portion outside the basin. Either further explanation on the prose is given for the inconsistency, or it gets removed altogether.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with several of these proposed changes as I feel that the section already gives adequate weight to each of the forecasts and that it is presented in a way that isn't going to confuse readers. The so-called stats are not just from BoM but also take into account any tropical cyclones monitored by Jakarta or PNG NWS within the region. I also will not be removing the NIWA prediction from the box, as while it varies from the format that the BoM uses, it doesnt vary from the format generally used. I also note that the NIWA prediction is valid for the region even though it includes a bit outside of the region. While I know that my writing isn't the best I do not feel that we need to go in-depth and explain the boundaries used in the seasonal forecast, as it would just bloat the section out especially since they mean virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things. Also the stuff about the ocean temperatures is in the references while I am prepared to take out the reference to the Indian Ocean Diopole but not to BoM's forecast for the eastern South Pacific as it provides the reader with more context about what the BoM were thinking ahead of the season. I invite other editors such as @Hurricanehink, Weatherman27, Destroyeraa, Jasper Deng, and ChocolateTrain: to help resolve this content dispute. Jason Rees (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived dispute/argument
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am currently busy, but I will provide a response at a later time. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Confusing at best. NIWA prediction partially inside and partially outside region equals inconsistency! Refusing to bloat the section is a bad reason when it leaves the section vague and confusing, simple as that. Info about ocean temperatures were not in the refs the last time I checked – quote the info in the references, then I'll believe, because right now I don't believe it.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I just checked the history and Jason Rees has added an incomplete and broken sentence to the article – more objections. Furthermore, the two refs after the sentence do not back up the sentence so it is bogus.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] One more: The table listing "Western South Pacific (142.5°E — 165°E)" is a complete overlap of "Eastern region (142.5°E – 160°E)". Delete this.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, I am not the best editor to talk about this as I don't have much experience with the Australia region cyclones and things related to it. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 20:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] As I stated yesterday @CyclonicallyDeranged: I am just stating my opinion and I would appreciate it if you could assume good faith rather than accusing me of making excuses. I made a mistake by adding that incomplete sentence and have since removed it but I used what is in the references and thus it isnt bogus also we are not allowed to quote per say but have to put it in our own words. Also, I will not be removing any forecasts because you think it's inconsistent with the region that the Wikipedia article defines as the Australian region or is a duplicate of the Eastern Region when it isnt.Jason Rees (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please fill me in here. I encourage usage of good faith and civil language from both parties. First, please fill me in. This is literally the hottest content dispute I’ve seen on my time on WP, including that one regarding the Delta image. So please, calm down and remember not to accuse anyone of anything without evidence. And please don’t attack others for making a simple mistake. Thank you. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I want to help, but I am a bit lost in regards to the content being disputed, is there any way you guys could summarize what is going on? 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 00:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Weatherman27 and Destroyeraa: Thanks for offering to help and I will respond properly tomorrow when I am calmer and less tired.Jason Rees (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Understandable. I will be here to help you both figure this out peacefully, as will @Destroyeraa: and any one else who wishes to help.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] The issues are still not addressed. I've added tags...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Weatherman27: if you only read the first paragraph in this thread alone, it covers everything I have objections to. Don't bother reading my talk page.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] The sentence is still in the article despite Jason Rees writing above he has removed it, and as I said before, the info is not, not, not in the reference, therefore it is definitely bogus. Yes the said region being referred to is essentially a duplicate. This comment dated 21:38, 4 November 2020 is violating so many times beyond comprehension.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I will read that paragraph then and see what should be done. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Talking it out is important, and all editors, including me, fail at it sometimes. This edit warring, content disputes, and disgusting behavior (personal attacks, vandalism) almost made me retire from WP. I'm going to do a DRN-style dispute resolution Jason Rees and CyclonicallyDeranged. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Destroyeraa: I don't believe a DRN is required here as DRN is supposed to be for a dispute for many people (more than 2). I've already explained what I have objections for already higher up in this thread anyway.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm taking off the space meant for dispute resolution. Won't help on the matter.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm OK with having the forecast for an island/country within the basin, written in prose, but I don't think we should include a forecast for the whole SPAC in the infobox. It would be different if it was a forecast from the BoM about the AUS region specifically. I'm OK with having the bit about La Niña, as that is a global phenomena, and the source holds true for the basin. I'd rather have more specifically AUS forecasts, but we take what we can get. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes I also think a forecast that is not in this basin should not be in an infobox in this article. Yes La Nina of course must be said in the forecast as this is the main driver of the number of cyclones becoming above average for this upcoming season. I also noticed that Destroyeraa removed from the article the sentence about the Indian Ocean Dipole which I agree.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] No offense, but it always amuses me when we have disputes over standard practices that appear to have been used before. Additionally, I'm getting a little sick of all these edit wars. Please talk things out before starting that because I have now seen this on multiple articles within the past few weeks AND was attacked personally by another editor who had NO clue on what he/she was talking about.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Based on the disputed content, I won't believe there was ever a standard practice. It is also not okay to write about happenings that did not occur in association with this article...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I agree with what Hurricanehink said about the article above. Also, we have to figure out the warring. I know that it is tough, but we have better ways to figure it out. I had to go WP:ANI the first time to ensure the edit warring stopped. I really don't want to see anyone get blocked. We are supposed to work together as a wiki-project, and I hate seeing such severe disputes like this. Please guys, work this out. I know it has been stressful, but we are almost through it, and we can make it. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 01:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this is necessarily helpful, but I'd express very tentative support for moving to a system similar to the 2018-2019 AUS season infobox, noting the SPAC article has the BoM SPAC outlook there. I am very new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing I'm allowed to weigh in on but the BoM SPAC outlook firmly mentions "South Pacific" which, while the basis are somewhat nebulously defined here, seems to lean as to BoM suggesting that outlook is pertinent to their definition of a "South Pacific" basin. I must also implore as a long time watcher and hopeful participator in this community that we don't edit war, seeing the disputes on talk pages and the WP:ANI stuff is not in my opinion the outcome anyone wants, so while I have offered a very tentative opinion I must stress that it is to be taken with a grain of salt due to my inexperience, and also my ultimate desire to see the parties involved resolve this, we're so close. ThePelicanThing (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Understood. Yes I agree the table in the 2018–19 article is more suitable than the table on this article right now. The main dispute to this article came from Jason Rees who I've noticed has not made any comments for 3 days...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Make that 4 days now with no comments. I may begin editing the section today since no one else has any objections...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I've now completed editing the section. I've expanded on the regional boundaries BOM sets on another article – Australian region tropical cyclone in the Background section – since the regions existed for a long time, and likely for a long time after today. Then I've linked that article here in the forecasts. Re Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD): it has no influence with this season's forecast so it will not be mentioned. For those who are curious, the IOD is neutral per BOM and is forecast to remain neutral throughout the season. I'm logging off for now. Any objections?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Look @CyclonicallyDeranged and Jason Rees: I still don't get what led into the dispute. :Make that 4 days now with no comments. I may begin editing the section today since no one else has any objections...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Jason has been busy the past few days and was "stressed with going back into lockdown" and has not edited much. Again, I ask for a background of the dispute from both of you. Cyclonically, I saw that you went and fixed up the season forecasts to the version you want - that's fine but I still want you and Jason to engage in conversation. The level of conversation between the two parties is just...very low. Now that Jason has told me that he's back, I want to see conversation. Have a good day. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I cannot stress enough my agreement with Destroyeraa here, it's one thing to see silence and act and it's another to achieve actual encyclopedic consensus, I hope the two parties can have a reasonable chat about this and give due consideration to the circumstances at hand. ThePelicanThing (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Not until Jason Rees actually begins chatting. Also I strongly disagree, I prefer not to see conversation – it can get worse.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Esp if such a conversation is only intended to stir up more trouble and escalate the dispute. Hope you understand...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @CyclonicallyDeranged: No, conversation is required when resolving disputes of Wikipedia, and I do not intend to stir up more trouble. Both you and Jason should be calm, not use foul language, and provide evidence and reasoning when discussing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Well Jason Rees isn't doing that very well for a while (conversation). Also, where is the foul language? Also, what you are suggesting isn't resolving disputes of Wikipedia, you are suggesting resolving disputes between Wikipedians...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Do you even read the discussion at all????? Because I think you are intending to provoke more trouble.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @CyclonicallyDeranged: With all due respect, please see WP:CON notably that a lack of response on talk pages does not indicate consensus has been reached and the fact that consensus necessarily must be reached to end a dispute and that, as stated above quite well requires discussion. I, like all of I us think we can agree, do not want to stir up trouble, however suggesting Destroyeraa is not promoting dispute resolution and suggesting they are intending to provoke more trouble contravenes WP:AGF regarding their comments on this discussion, and frankly, in "Do you even read the discussion at all" is erring towards baiting a defensive response which is clearly discouraged per WP:CIV. I assume this was unintended and implore you to let this simmer out for a bit and discuss with Jason when appropriate. Be kind. ThePelicanThing (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I can probably wait for comments after today. Thank you. The "Do you even read the discussion" means from what they write, I do not believe they have read the discussion at all. I should note that letting more discussions go on does not always lead to a consensus especially if more arguments take place. This would imply that Wikipedia's process for a consensus has its own setbacks...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @CyclonicallyDeranged: ITN put aside, we have been doing the consensus thing on WP since 2001. It may have its setbacks, but that doesn't mean you go ahead and Do you even read the discussion at all????? Because I think you are intending to provoke more trouble is not the proper attitude for discussion. Just be patient. Please. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] thank you--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] So has this discussion been resolved? There were a lot of heated words here, and in the article, it looks like the NIWA forecast was removed from the infobox. Is that a decent summary? Is there anything else that needs discussion? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Hurricanehink: While i can ignore the NIWA forecast being removed from the infobox, I feel that @CyclonicDerranged:'s recent edits make the section a lot poorer, as it gives way to much weight to the BoM forecast and poorly explains what La Nina is. It also removes a lot of the information from my edits that is relevant. @Destroyeraa and ThePelicanThing: I am currently compiling a summary of the dispute from my perspective.Jason Rees (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] What specifically makes the section poorer? The section mentions the water temperatures near the Australian basin, and that La Nina seasons tend to start earlier. The edits by CyclonicallyDeranged also add the percent chance of increased activity by each area. The only thing that's missing is the potential for a C5 cyclone, but that's possible in any year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I feel that Jason Rees wants to argue for the sake of arguing! yuck.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Let Jason respond and we will see. The 'feel' you get of what they're doing won't necessarily help, let's assume good faith and try to work this out as a community. ThePelicanThing (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I very much doubt that it will. Also, "I feel that @CyclonicDerranged:'s recent edits make the section a lot poorer" is not a sign of assuming good faith. I rest my case.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Well, you called Jason's editing "poor editing, so maybe you should follow ThePelicanThing's advice and stop complaining. Also, since you Don't need other opinions...then maybe you should take a wikibreak and come back with an open mind. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Couldn't disagree more – the above comment. The "poor editing" is true.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to suggest that everyone on here just chill, and remember what we're doing. We're building an encyclopedia, in the midst of a global pandemic. We're all trying our best, but we need to remember that we are working with other people, who have valid feelings and opinions. We're all probably stressed because we can't do what we normally like to do. So let's do our best in writing this encyclopedia so future generations can look back on us, hopefully with pride, as we document this subset of weather topics in the midst of the greatest rapid change in Earth's climate. Let's leave the arguing and name calling to the climate change deniers and the politicians/corporations who can't seem to agree on doing anything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is going absolutely nowhere and is probably going to end up at ANI. I've been watching CD's talk page for days, and this is not a discussion, it's an argument with some ad hominem in it (it's the edits that matter, CyclonicallyDeranged; NOT the editor). And this NIWA business has peacefully been going on for years. Why not just add a note saying "This outlook also includes part of the South Pacific" and leave it there. As a last note, @CyclonicallyDeranged: read WP:CIR and WP:CIVIL until you are able to comprehend how you have violated those policies towards Jason Rees. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:CIVIL and WP:CIR yourself. I'm not here to make friends, but to improve Wikipedia. You just don't like my edits and only want to have things done your way. You just violated those policies yourself. And as I have said a thousand times before, this is not the South Pacific.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Civility inapplicable when the other one in the dispute cannot assume good faith. Try a better argument next time.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Reverting back to last good version. Do not revert because of your tastes – it is disruptive, could be edging on vandalism too...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] If you think that that is vandalism, then you're just doing more ad hominem. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] If anyone who just read this discussion and believes I am purposely winding people up, I'm not. I'm just being assertive on the subject matter. :-)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] There isn't scope for you to unilaterally revert to the "last good version" because there isn't a good version until we have consensus. Can we hold off on any more of this revert business until Jason Rees has posted their reply so we can appreciate both arguments. Please stop WP:ABF of anyone with a different viewpoint by suggesting other cannot WP:AGF and by suggesting anyone not conforming to your edits is doing so based purely on taste. The result of this action is embarrassing the community, raising the very real potential of ANI and most importantly making the editing process more painful than it needs to be. If we are patient and acknowledge people get busy, WP:AGF and find some sources so we can have a discussion when appropriate, we can edit better together. ThePelicanThing (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] The fact a lack of discussion about the article content and Wikipedia relies on a so-called consensus is why Wikipedia is failing so bad. Yes I had reason to revert based on article content. I am not waiting for anything, especially from someone who resorts to edit warring... I agree the community's conduct here is a big embarrassment to the world...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I don't want to be rude, but CyclonicallyDeranged I get very pissed when someone reverts a clearly non-vandalism edit claiming it's "vandalism" because you don't like it. So I suggest you redact could be edging on vandalism too.... Thanks, and have fun editing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Reverts without addressing all the writing that got changed back...definition of vandalism.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] A new policy you're violating: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 15 times, to date. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Reflected on yourself.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] You're honestly a bit like Bedriczwaleta. If you try to interact with Bedriczwaleta, he'll shoot personal attacks back at you. So goodbye. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] You need to grow up...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] The only person who does "LTA" is the person who brought up the idea...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] can you guys just.. chill? maybe take sometime away from this article, as it is certainly causing problems for many editors. I likehurricanes 12:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Chicdat and CyclonicallyDeranged: enough with the personal attacks...both of you. Cyclonically, it's not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM. Chicdat, I doubt Cyclonically is a LTA, so don't accuse. Cyclonically, don't attack Chicdat either. Personally, Cyclonically, your arguments will be better accepted if you change your tone and your rudeness. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I agree with I like Hurricanes. This is a very stressful time, and will only get worse unless everyone takes a break to regather their thoughts. Let's take some time away from this talk page, then in a week or two we can come back and hopefully everyone will have calmed down, so that we can actually have a civil and respectful discussion. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 17:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I compared both versions side by side, and they're largely the same. One difference is whether the first paragraph should include both the BoM and the NIWA forecast. As they were both in October, I mention them both in the first paragraph, and used the second to talk more about AUS, and the third to talk about the NIWA. The proposed compromise first paragraph still discusses the La Nina conditions and the warmer waters around AUS. One difference is that it doesn't include the exact date for the first BoM outlook, so that is something for discussion. Another difference was whether to mention the average number of storms in each sub-region. I tend to believe that is more on the trivial side, as I think that's more of a general climatology, and it's sufficient just saying the BoM expected X% chance of increased storms in each region. For the 3rd paragraph, I kept the text by Cyclonicallyderanged that mentioned the lower activity early in the season, as well as Jason's text mentioning the possibility of a C5. Is the following a sufficient section/compromise? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: FYI, I reverted back to the revision before the edit warring. The compromise looks good IMO. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging both @CyclonicallyDeranged: and @Jason Rees: to see what they think of the compromise. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 20:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great you are stepping in to work on the content. The text at large I am happy with. There are however a few spots within the text I wish to point out that Hurricanehink has included in the text but have not yet been addressed in the discussion: ––The NIWA outlook is not named "the Island Climate Update tropical cyclone outlook", it is named "Southwest Pacific Tropical Cyclone Outlook". The Island Climate Update is a monthly report on the current situation in Pacific, including the current and predicted state of La Nina, while it does not discuss cyclonic predictions. ––May I ask is it 'BoM' or 'BOM'? The bureau's article right now reads 'BOM'. Otherwise it may be better to write the bureau's name in full. Currently 'BoM' is only used twice in the text. ––It would be great to wikilink MetService and NIWA. I believe the University of Newcastle and Météo-France also contributed to NIWA's outlook, while the FMS was not stated in the outlook, but 'Pacific Island National Meteorological Services' was acknowledged. ––Neither NIWA or BOM's outlooks cite the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) as an influence to the outlook, or did you add that in as an assumption that the IOD had an influence? ––The sentence "expected an average to slightly above average number of tropical cyclones was expected for the season" has "expected" written twice. ––It appears the acknowledgement from BOM's outlook that the first TC typically forms earlier than normal, in mid-December, during La Nina seasons, is missing in the text. ––The info "The outlook expected for at least three of the tropical cyclones to intensify into severe tropical cyclones" from NIWA's outlook, I believe, encompasses the region, the Southwest Pacific, as a whole. It is not predicted at least 3 STCs will form within the smaller area that is within the Aus region. The info about the risk of a Cat 5 forming can stay as this prediction does not encompass the SW Pacific as a whole. ––The BOM and NIWA outlooks were issued 8 days apart so just saying 'October 2020' is fine, 'mid-October 2020' is also fine. ––The averages for each sub-region are all right to be not in the text and okay just on the table. ––By the way the table is not in this discussion, there were changes to the table as well. ––I saw some days ago the BOM had also issued more outlooks more specific to each region. They have some info I feel are important, but I have not yet bothered to put on Wikipedia. The info I was supposed to add but haven't done so is the following: The Northwestern sub-region had a probability of two tropical cyclones crossing the Western Australian coast, with a significant risk of at least one of these to be a severe tropical cyclone.^[1] Another info I considered adding is the following: The bureau also advised that cyclone kits include a supply of face masks and hand sanitisers, owing to the concurrent COVID-19 pandemic.^[2] ––Hope you can talk about it.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the IOD was added as it has an effect on tropical cyclone development in part of the basic that encompasses the Australia region. I am not too sure though, as I am not very familiar with that area. I don't have much time for long replies, but I largely agree with what you are proposing here. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 09:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: I agree with adding the part about Covid, because the 2020 Atl season includes it, and we're still in the middle of a pandemic. I hope the vaccine comes out soon, but add it for good measure. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the name of the SPAC outlook. As for BoM or BOM, traditionally we have lowercased the "o", which incidentally is how the BoM stylizes it themselves. I removed the Indian Ocean Dipole (not in source), and the double "expected" in the 2nd para. I opted not to include the bit about the possibility of an early-forming storm. That seems a bit on the trivial side, as it's only one storm, and if the first storm doesn't form until January, then that sentence will stick out. I can't imagine a similar type of sentence occurring in an Atlantic season article, where the first storm's formation date doesn't have a huge effect on the seasonal activity. The seasonal forecast covers the entire season. On that note, I removed the bit about 3 severe cyclones and the potential C5 cyclone, as CD is correct, that is for the SPAC as a whole. I also agree with adding the bit about Covid, and the potential for two Western Australian landfalls. Does the proposed text work now? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the acronym fairly irregularly while using the website. Google search finds BoM and BOM used just as frequent as each other. News reports and the bureau's app have other things going. I would prefer writing the name in full. The early cyclone idea came not just from the cited outlook but from watching the news on the telly, and I have seen online news explaining it such as this one which mentions it twice, which led me to believe this was important and not trivial. It would alert people that the risk would come earlier than normal and would better prepare them before the season began. If in fact no cyclones form until January, this demonstrates that the outlook was off, and past events have proven that forecasts don't always eventuate as described, and that is to be expected at any year. The fact Atlantic hurricane seasons do not give this info might mean that this info is unique and more relevant to the Australian people. Yes the text is a lot better than before. We have not yet discussed the table, or will there be no table?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a bit on the trivial side, as it's only one storm" and "doesn't have a huge effect on the seasonal activity". I will use this analogy on a past season, our beloved Atlantic hurricanes of 1992. Very inactive season overall. Let us look at the storms in that year individually. So according to User:Hurricanehink's idea, we will regard the first storm of the season with a unremarkable name of Andrew to be "a bit on the trivial side, as it's only one storm" and the fact it "doesn't have a huge effect on the seasonal activity". We will not include storm Andrew on the 1992 article. Further examples are 1980, 1983 and 2001. Let's regard Allen, Alicia or Allison to be trivial as each of these are only one storm and each have little effect on their respective seasonal activity. P.S. Come to think of it, Hurricanehink may have misunderstood what was meant by an earlier than normal TC from the seasonal outlook.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we already note that the season begins on November 1st, so in theory that's enough notice that people should be prepared for storms. Also, regarding the 1992 season, there was a storm in April - that is a very early storm formation. Andrew was rather late in the season, in August. I only meant it trivial to highlight the potential for an earlier than normal storm, and that the early formation date doesn't have a huge effect on seasonal activity. The first storm could form in January and yet it be a very busy season. As for BoM, we shouldn't always write it out in full, since we use the acronym so much in the article. As for BoM or BOM, I still think we should defer to what the agency uses (with the lowercase o). As for the table, I think we if we have any more seasonal forecasts specifically for the AUS basin, we should add one. But with only one forecast for the basin, I think it's better to write in prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So when can Wikipedia have the text onto article?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise text
In October 2020, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued their tropical cyclone outlook for the 2020–21 season, and in the same month, the agency contributed towards the Southwest Pacific Tropical Cyclone Outlook, along with New Zealand's MetService, NIWA and the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS). Each of the outlooks accounted for analogue seasons and the effects of various climate drivers, which included the state of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Below average sea surface temperatures in the Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and atmospheric conditions indicated a La Niña pattern, and it was declared that a La Niña had emerged on 29 September 2020. The BoM predicted that the La Niña pattern will persist into early 2021, and waters north of Australia and the Southwestern Pacific Ocean will be warmer than average in the coming three months.^[3][4] The bureau also advised that cyclone kits include a supply of face masks and hand sanitisers, owing to the concurrent COVID-19 pandemic.^[5]

The BoM expected an average to slightly above average number of tropical cyclones for the season. The agency predicted a 66% chance of above average activity for the region as a whole, compared with the average of 11 tropical cyclones. They also predicted that the Western and Northwestern sub-regions both had a 63% chance of experiencing more tropical cyclones than usual, the Northern region had a 57% chance of above average activity, and the Eastern region had a 67% chance of more tropical cyclones than the average.^[3] The Northwestern sub-region had a probability of two tropical cyclones crossing the Western Australian coast, with a significant risk of at least one of these to be a severe tropical cyclone.^[6]

The Island Climate Update tropical cyclone outlook covered a portion of the Australian region that comprised waters surrounding Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, the Coral Sea, and the northern Tasman Sea including Norfolk Island. The outlook called for a reduced level of tropical cyclone activity in the early season, from November to January, but an increased level of activity in the late season, from February to April. Near normal activity during the season was expected for Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, while an elevated level of activity was expected in the Coral Sea and the northern Tasman Sea, especially during the late season.^[7]

Now I am confused. Is it supposed to be 'Seasonal summary' and 'Seasonal forecasts'?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: Stick with 'Season'. I was confused about this too a long time ago. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be 'seasonal' because those sections are explaining the season as a whole, and 'season' is never an adjective to describe things.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: I'm not sure the "subtropical low" warrants inclusion or is even a thing that exists. The outlook refers to a system southeast of PNG but there's only a very weak disturbance south of the country, nothing subtropical. Unless they mean wayyy southeast on PNG and are referring to an extratropical low southeast of New Caledonia which is outside the basin. I don't believe we've included subtrops from the BOM before either as they don't warn on them, but I could be wrong. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Me neither but I just added it in just in case. I do not mind at this point to support keeping it or taking it out. Same here, I do not recall any system by the BoM that classifies a system as a subtropical low nor I find something interesting in the satellite animations. Let us wait first I guess in the next bulletins should this "transition" into an actual TL. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is this subtropical low based on the Coral Sea 3-day outlook, and nowhere else? No mention of intensity, exact location, pressure reading. Only one update per day. So bare. (By the way, I am cringing also with the other tropical low 01U for relying on the 3-day outlooks that do not mention the low's windspeed and update only once per day, and weather charts. BOM issues no bulletins on it.)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: Yeah. Many of the minor TLs are mentioned there. The BoM doesn't issue forecast tracks unless they predict it to become a TC. The BoM also is quite confusing with their designations because they mostly do not mention them anywhere. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: Just linking from what we have just discussed here. Thoughts? Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So from what I gather, the article will only write about the lows and cyclones with a 'xxU' designation. Despite the Sub-TL getting a mention on the bureau's TC outlook, the Sub-TL is not notable as it got no 'U' designation. Okay...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted this problem before and it has arisen again. I was told it should be BoM. But the recent edits to the article have it written as BOM. So again, which one? In case you do not know yet, I believe it should be BOM. Also, Wikipedia's article for the Aussie bureau has it written as BOM.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BoM website uses a lower case "o", since it just stands for "of". Plus we've long used "BoM". IMO that's what we should use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: The article has loads of BOM right now. Explain this? Switching from BoM to BOM everywhere in the article is unacceptable. Still no explanation why the bureau's article still says, and has been throughout this time, BOM. Therefore, I am definitely not buying the "we've long used BoM" argument.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the home page of the bureau's website right now has one case of 'BOM' being used with no sign of 'BoM'. So I am not buying the "the BoM website uses a lower case "o"" argument either.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier, the Bom uses a lowercase "o" on their page describing acronyms, and here as well. Also, this website from Western Australia uses BoM. I imagine the O might occasionally be uppercase if someone types it out using the shift button, or if it's in all caps. Since the "o" only stands for "of", I don't think it should be capitalized, as the "o". Also, not that it matters too much in this article, but for a while, Wikipedia has used lowercase "o", so consistency is nice, unless there is a compelling reason to change it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ref from the linked page has BOM written all over it. Well? Wikipedia may have done it wrong all along. By the way, the reasons for having BoM are not compelling at all. Last but not least you still have not explained why the bureau's article still says 'BOM'.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears both are used. I think we should defer to the Bureau explaining it on their acronym page. I did explain how you might get BoM if someone held down the shift button/caps lock. It’s a really small thing, one letter changing. Do you have a strong reason to go against established precedent on Wikipedia? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Wikipedia page for BOM and look at the BOM's home page. What established precedent? Of all things, it should be BOM given how many times the news reports them.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I had in mind some of our better articles in the basin, like Cyclone Monica, Cyclone Ada, and Cyclone Althea. Since the BoM/BOM clearly uses both, I think we can use either, as long as we're consistent within an article. I don't think it's worth changing all of the other articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support BoM as the O stands for of and feels more accurate. We can always go in and change the acronym on the BoM wiki page. Jason Rees (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not be changing things without first finding out how the term got in that article first.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm noting the term prisoner-of-war gets abbreviated to POW even though the O is for 'of' so it is not always lowercase.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  lol this is an interesting find while looking up other BOMs. Bill of materials or BOM.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know when something was added to a page, you can use WikiBlame like here. As the creator of the Bureau of Meteorology page, I can't think of any reason not to include both cases so I've done so. Graham87 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has changed to include both as if they are both acceptable. hahahaha. I think if TC outlooks and bulletins the bureau issues do not use the acronym at all in their writing, it would be best to avoid writing the acronym on Wikipedia too. Also, merely writing the acronym is lazy.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is just lazy to abbreviate the Bureau of Meteorology to BoM or BOM, then I hope you enjoy spelling out Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika every time we need to reference them in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant and WP:POINTY, since that agency abbreviates their name on their website, BMKG. Bureau of Meteorology, meanwhile, never abbreviates on the most visited pages on their website.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that irrelevant - Jason is right, it would be too much to write out every agency every time we use it. Whether it's BOM or BoM is a very minor stylistic choice, but writing out "Bureau of meteorology" a dozen times in an article adds up to a lot of unnecessary space. Imagine if the 2020 AHS wrote out National Hurricane Center every time. It would be insane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all irrelevant or pointy as we would want to maintain consistency and spell out the BMKG in full every time, if we are made to spell out the Bureau of Meteorology on every single occasion we use it within the article which is what you seem to be wanting by calling us lazy.

NHC appears frequently in their website and are on a number of links. BOM, meanwhile, hardly ever gets used on their website. Can't compare the two agencies. When the bureau refers to themselves on their website, it is always Bureau of Meteorology, and Wikipedia should do the same...or it's laziness.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown several links with the abbreviation. It's not laziness, it's saving time and space. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to BOM's website at large. Your links are merely a handful of pages from the thousands of webpages from BOM. 99% of all pages refer to themselves as Bureau of Meteorology. Hope you understand. Wikipedia can always save time and space by referring tropical cyclone as TC, hurricane as HU, tropical low as TL, typhoon as TY, etc.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sense an edit war going on. Can we just leave them as how it is? With or without convert template, it reads the same way, so it is good either way. So how about we not change it from one way to the other???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: There are two reasons why I believe we should not use the convert templates. Firstly, they introduce an unnecessary amount of complex and clunky source code into the article when all that is required is a main number and a bracketed number. Secondly, such templates make it much more difficult for new editors to contribute. Wikipedia already has a ridiculous number of policies, procedures and alphabet soup terms which take a long time to learn properly, so the last thing a new editor needs is the extra discouragement and difficulty provided by unnecessary Wikipedia source code and template-specific syntax. It is much simpler to just convert the value on Google or by calculator. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Beraniladri19 so he can see my reasoning. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the convert template supposed to do that purpose: to not have to grab a calculator or Google to do the conversion? Oh well, since it is now about which method is easier: to do a conversion manually, or to put on a template with a strict coding...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged and ChocolateTrain: I'm just making to make editors easier doing by inserting input without converting again, but if you think it is problematic so I just stop doing that. As CyclonicallyDeranged said that 'to not have to grab a calculator or Google to do the conversion', I just doing that only. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 Talk 03:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: Imogen is the strongest storm of the season according to pressure Dam222 🌋 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why ask that? Won't Imogen be the strongest cyclone anyway for being the only TC so far for the whole season?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02U and Imogen is strong because both have a pressure of 991, so it has to be added to the template. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dam222: 02U still has stronger winds. Once Imogen's winds reach 40 knots, we can add it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shouln't Imogen have its own article? Basically I think that every storm that is either significantly strong or strikes land should have an article. Imogen struck land, so could someone please make an article for Imogen? -AwesomeHurricaneBoss (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeHuricaneBoss: Unfortunately don't think so. Imogen barely had an impacts and no deaths; the storm's summary and impacts is enough to be fit in the season article section. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tropical Cyclone Kimi is currently a threat to the city of Cairns, I have made a draft for the article. Feel free to check it out and help me expand the MH section with new content. Thank you!Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever does the archiving of sources, could I please ask a source for a source for the TC outlook for the Western Region on 01/15? This is the formation date of 08U. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot capture the page with a web archiver, but here's what was in FQAU21 AMMC 151921 high seas forecast.

Supportstorm (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if this is necessary, but I'm currently looking at old tropical lows and cyclones of this season, and I came across this.

BrownieKing talk 11:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing reliable sources which explicitly mention Tropical Low 08U as Tropical Cyclone Lucas, including the NOAA which referred to the storm as such on Twitter. I've also searched on Google for "Cyclone Lucas" and several articles have mentioned it as such (just one example) even with one showing a cone with the C1 icon in blue. Did we miss something here? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: We didnt miss anything as the BoM didnt name 08U as Lucas.Jason Rees (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that isn't an explanation..at all. There are several reliable sources referring it to as Cyclone Lucas. The officials may have messed up or know something we don't know. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: I am sorry that my explanation wasn't sufficient for you, but it is the BoM (Not NOAA or the Media) who would have named the system as Lucas and they didn't name it Lucas regardless of what your reliable sources say. I know this because I saw several of the BoM's advisories which didn't mention a name. On that twitter feed I see that a scientist from the UKMO commented on that NOAA twitter feed saying: "BoM never actually named the system but kept it as a ‘tropical low’." As a result, we do know that the name wasn't officially assigned to 08U and remains on the list for future use.Jason Rees (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They could of easily released an advisory of it as a TROPICAL CYCLONE then reverted it to a tropical low as it was making landfall. A source like NOAA, yes NOAA, claiming it as Tropical Cyclone Lucas is enough to say there was some contradictory info here. This knowledge I already know. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the BoM cyclone outlook, both tropical lows are listed with their numerical designations (08U and 10U) rather than any name. The BoM will reference any cyclones that weaken to tropical low status by name (ex: ex-Lucas) so we can be assured that the storm wasn't named. — Iunetalk 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the news press gave info on the predicted cyclone and put the name Lucas on their headlines. The press probably did that to grab people’s attention about the impending risk when the low was way offshore and forecast to become a biggie.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per CyclonicallyDeranged. It is not the media who names cyclones, it is the BoM (for this case). Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media still named the low Cyclone Lucas regardless of what the bureau does which was what happened here. It happened in the same manner for previous cyclones in history. The media did that to attract attention from readers. New Zealand did this similarly for Cyclone Cook even when it became extra-tropical a few years ago. So it is likely there will be two cyclones going to be labelled Lucas, this and a future cyclone. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were news articles which speculatively called the tropical low "Lucas", but the storm was very much not named by the official WMO-designated RSMC. Only one storm will be officially named "Lucas", and it hasn't formed yet. — Iunetalk 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm looking at BoM's Outlooks, and i saw this on the Northern Region.

"A monsoon trough is forming across the northern Gulf of Carpentaria and the Top End, with a low about 120km east of Nhulunbuy at 9am on the morning of Sunday 24 January. The low is expected to continue to develop as it moves slowly east or southeast through the Gulf of Carpentaria".

Does it mean, there's another tropical low formed?

That's the link.

http://www.bom.gov.au/nt/forecasts/tcoutlook.shtml

I'm just confused, sorry.

BrownieKing talk 06:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownieKing: They only mentioned "low" and not tropical. So at the mean time it's just a Low-pressure area; we'll see tomorrow or in the coming outlooks where this fully develops into something tropical - in which we add in the season totals. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Developing tropical low...more cyclones incoming. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bom.gov.au/nt/forecasts/tcoutlook.shtml In the link, it is mentioned that Another tropical low (12U) may form --. I wonder if there's criteria in Wikipedia that doesn't allow it to be listed, or if it wasn't up to date. Actually, what systems are listed in this article, for example why 06U is listed at the end with other systems? It would be helpful if there's explanation about what standards Wikipedia use for Australian region TCs, like how BoM differently states the systems, too.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) ~[reply]

@Luke Kern Choi 5: I wonder too.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I heard that if there is strong model agreement for a future cyclone, BoM would tag an area worth watching, regardless if a low pressure exists there or not. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We try and monitor all tropical lows and designated lows publically montiored, however, systems like 12U are a bit of a grey area. My personal view is that they should go in the article as after all they were numbered and we would include pre-tropical cyclones in the Atlantic. However, if they dissipate without much fanfare or developing into a tropical cyclone then they belong in other systems. I am not sure about what we are calling 06U being in other systems - will need to look into it at some point when I'm not busy.Jason Rees (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicallyDeranged: @Luke Kern Choi 5: Sorry I just seen this message, and I personally want to address this too. It would make sense to add in all designated TLs immediately to the storms section mentioned by BoM, however we see some cases where the BoM mentions something along the lines of "the tropical low may form..." (or "forming") or "the tropical low is developing..." I personally view that we should add it in if they do not mention those quotes. Me and CT have been checking the outlooks each day and if we see the BoM designating the system we add it in the table here above this talk page. It isn't just 12U, but it is also 08U - where the BoM designated it on 15/1, but didn't become a full-fledged TL on 17/1. Thoughts on this, @ChocolateTrain:? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found this video from BoM, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcigF5Ofd7E) and it states that total of 15 tropical lows formed, which probably tells that they only considered numbered tropical lows. However, it is still uncertain if 13U and 14U is the TL from February. Hence, I would like for someone to contact BoM to clarify which systems they consider as tropical lows (also regarding the unnamed tropical low in December). Also, I wonder if it's also possible to ask them to simply show the summary of the season (operational data) when the season ends for source uses. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Kern Choi 5: That would be a good idea. The BoM in fact does have a post-analytical data for all TCs (does not include the minor TLs). It was a bit weird how BoM did not designate the December TL, but I'd keep it since it does have a section in regards on some impacts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everybody. So, the BoM issued tropical cyclone watches for the developing low (Feb.27 - Present):

Headline: Tropical low may produce gales about exposed parts of the north tropical coast as it develops into a tropical cyclone, most likely on Tuesday.

Areas affected: Warning zone: None.

Watch zone: Cape Flattery to Lucinda, including Cairns, Port Douglas, and Innisfail.

Cancelled zones: None.

Can someone add this? Thanks. :)

BrownieKing talk 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownieKing: and @DavidTheMeteorologist:, remember archive your sources, the BOM and JTWC refresh after six hours to the next update!!DachshundLover82 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FleurDeOdile:, how is that image low quality. I’m not going to start an edit war. DachshundLover82 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dashcuand here. The structure of the storm seems better than the first one imo. Fleur's image is good too but I think both qualities are the same, I personally don't think it is "garbage" though s what Fleur said in an edit summary. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013:, yeah that’s why I liked the first one since the second one looks like just a messy swirl. Plus, Fleur hasn’t been kind with edit summaries recently. He curses a lot in a rude way, even at confused users. Sadly, when we try to be kind to him, he ignores us.DachshundLover82 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get off topic much but here’s that edit summary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1010061850 not to sure what to do about this behavior.DachshundLover82 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the image is literally of a dying TC. using images of dying TCs is never ok in the project. FleurDeOdile 22:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

project guidelines say a good peak image must be used on articles and not off peak stuff FleurDeOdile 22:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FleurDeOdile:, a good peak image, not one that makes it look like a sloppy storm. You rejected my peak image several times for Hurricane Teddy for the same reason. Hurricane Sandy off the east coast would be used if we always, always went by that guideline. There are a few exceptions. Plus, that image doesn’t need to be deleted. Please don’t start an edit war over this.DachshundLover82 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially that. The image, being either used or not, does not need to be deleted. Of course people would want to see other images of a storm from different stages. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 13S 2021-01-25 1342Z.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am suggesting to make a new article regarding Cyclone Niran due to its impacts in Australia with a lot of crops down by Niran earlier, and some more impacts, along with its impacts expected in New Caledonia soon. Any thoughts? Thanks , Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to suggest a possible article for Marian, even though it had minor effects on land if any. AwesomeHurricaneBoss (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in http://www.bom.gov.au/nt/forecasts/tcoutlook.shtml which I archived today, there's two tropical lows, of which first one is 22U as it is mentioned present in Western Region. However, second one is mentioned as north of Northern Region, which is responsibility of Indonesia I assume. Should this be included in seasonal totals? Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the Western Region, but I forgot to add it. You can add it in the summary yourself! LowercaseGuy chow! 23:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed a article from ABC saying 44 dead. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/heavy-rains-trigger-landslide-floods-indonesia-23-dead-76863495 It appears to be reliable as it’s came from a natural disaster spokesperson. Should this be added on in its stats? I’ve also found an Indonesian source saying 63 but it’s not allowing me to send the link here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.104.121 (talk) 10:47 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in this webpage http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/forecasts/cyclone.shtml, BoM stated there's a tropical low near 160°E latitude. Should we add this?Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 06:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beraniladri19, no until tropical low develop HurricaneEdgar 06:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneEdgar, But it says something like this :-

"A tropical low in the northeast Coral Sea is continuing to develop close to the eastern edge of the Eastern Region [160 degrees East]. The low is expected to move southeastwards and out of the Eastern Region by Saturday afternoon, and is not expected to return to the Eastern Region.

A second weak low off the far northeast coast of Queensland is not expected to develop.

There are no other significant tropical lows in the Eastern Region and none are expected to develop during the next three days."

So shall we add the first one

Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 06:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beraniladri19, still develop but not yet formed HurricaneEdgar 06:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneEdgar, Ok let see what Typhoon2013 says. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 07:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to go in as it the BoM has said that a tropical low has formed and i have no doubt that it has already been designated as xxF and xxU already.Jason Rees (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneEdgar: @Beraniladri19: I believe that statement clearly states that it is now a tropical low. BoM really needs to be clear whether a TL has formed or not, and designating the system before its formation really is confusing. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell that when did Tropical Low 24U dissipated or still active.Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 03:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beraniladri19: Last mentioned on 4/11, therefore that is the dissipation date. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon2013, ok thanxs Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is in charge of citations, I would kindly ask to archive the source of BoM's Western Region/Northern Territory cyclone outlook for 29 March, as that was when they began mentioning the formation of 22U (Seroja). Since we have found out, thanks to @HurricaneEdgar:, that Odette was formed a day before Seroja, we need to mention how BoM tracked Seroja first. It will be quite confusing to the readers if they find that 23U (Odette) formed before 22U (Seroja). Typhoon2013 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be not as long tropical as now. JTWC and BOM no longer update and storm is no longer view-able on satilite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.104.121 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]