Talk:Typhoon Fung-wong (2025): Difference between revisions

Line 70: Line 70:

==Name==

Not sure what the usual formatting is for these articles but, for the people who care about the names, “Fung-wong” is a [[Jyutping]] romanization of the [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]] pronunciation of the Chinese word {{lang|zh|鳳凰／凤凰}} (pinyin {{translit|zh|fènghuáng}}), meaning “(Chinese) [[fenghuang|phoenix]]”. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style=”text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml”>Llywelyn<span style=”color: Gold;”>II</span></span>]] 04:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 9 November 2025 by reviewer Chlod (talk · contribs).

I get Fung-wong is extremely likely to become a typhoon, and this is still only a draft, but I feel like it’s a tad bit WP:CRYSTAL-y to label it as a typhoon even in draft space. AutisticLoser (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

talking about the title of the draft for the record AutisticLoser (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone knows it’s a typhoon now, even reaching very strong typhoon status, but when a TC is not a typhoon yet, even if it’s very close to intensify into a typhoon, I agree that changing and moving a draft still feels a bit/violates WP:CRYSTAL, but normally you won’t be in trouble.

Previously I’ve created a draft for TD 26W, which at the time was only a TD before strengthening into Bualoi hours later. I didn’t receive any notices saying that I violated the crystal ball rule or created a hoax, which can be speedily deleted according to WP:G3. I guess only when it’s too early like 12—18 hours or even days earlier that there will be some problems. EmperorChesser 13:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, and I’m fine with having it called a “typhoon” in the drafts if we’re realistically expecting that intensity by the time is draft is published anyway. Chlod (say hi!) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah that’s all fair. Thanks both of you for letting me know. And yeah, my concerns were soon left moot anyway. AutisticLoser (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I legitimately don’t know if it fits in the met history or preparations section, there’s bits about it that fit both IMO. Prob more in the preparations section, but the bit about it being the second time it’s been done early prob belongs in the met history. I’ve already changed this and undone it once so I’ll defer to others opinions on this. AutisticLoser (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up doing, well, you can see the edit. Still unsure about how to proceed with this but Imma just leave it be for now AutisticLoser (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this draft. If I do not immediately review the draft after the redirect is deleted, it is because I am in a time zone that will make it impossible for me. My schedule at 1 AM on a Sunday does not typically include reviewing drafts. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Wind and Fire: You requested deletion of Typhoon Fung-wong (2025) under CSD G6, which implies that you already plan to accept this draft. Was this not the case? Chlod (say hi!) 04:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Wind and Fire: Due to persisting inactivity, I have taken over the review and published the draft. Please avoid marking drafts as under review if you plan on going offline immediately after, as this lets other, more available AfC/NPP patrollers to take a look at the page. Chlod (say hi!) 12:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Chlod. I was going to accept the draft but was unaware of the redirect, so I requested CSD G6. Thank you for taking over. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 14:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some say over 1800km size as of now making it the 2nd largest pacific typhoon behind typhoon tip and 3rd largest tropical cyclone behind hurricane sandy ~2025-32281-67 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s 1,800 per PAGASA via Rappler.^[1] Chlod (say hi!) 12:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I oppose the addition of Tropical Cyclone Wind Signal (TCWS) tables due to them being hard to cite as well as them being confusing: what bulletin is the table based on? Is it listing all of the provinces that held a TCWS? In addition, no good article or featured article which ever neared or made landfall in the Philippines do not have a TCWS table. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think its inclusion makes the page look bad because of the giant wall of text it produces. It’s easily replaceable with a graphic instead, and that way we won’t be having an inconvenient table in the middle of the page. Chlod (say hi!) 12:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer and Chlod: I have the same POV as you guys, but I think a graphic is not enough. Thus, I suggest bringing back the timeline of all TCWS warnings from the beginning as what we did in Typhoon Kalmaegi and other articles. EmperorChesser 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is the best way to express all the information available in the Preparations section. EmperorChesser 13:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will try to make a timeline in my sandbox and paste it in the preparations section. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a giant wall of nearly unreadable and complicated text that isn’t really useful to the reader and isn’t really exactly relevant, aside from areas where Signal No. 5 are raised. A general “where were signals raised” is enough. Chlod (say hi!) 13:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend issuing a strict warning to whoever keeps adding them back. We do not need another editor perpetuating a peenoise stereotype in Wiki. Borgenland (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod: Do you think my draft of the TCWS is okay? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. I’d recommend using Internet Archive /download links; User:Zoomiebot/Archives/PAGASA/2025 has all of them. Hotlinking to a specific IA datacenter can end up breaking the link if the item is moved to a different datacenter. I’d also add in the final few Signal No. 5 hoists in the Nueva Ecija and Vizcaya, and primarily the one in Aurora, where we’re expecting peak intensity landfall. Chlod (say hi!) 13:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the strongest and largest storm to have affected the Philippines in 2025. Daniel boxs (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly premature and I’d prefer waiting for landfall/impacts first. Chlod (say hi!) 13:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove this topic? Keeping it here might confuse newcomers as they may thought this is an actual RM. EmperorChesser 14:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author didnt really specify what new title would be after the move

However i assume the original author made this requested move topic to remove the year in the title and to rename this article to “typhoon fung-wong” without the year, could be wrong but this my 2 cents. Khandacalos (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s very much probably what the expected title was. Chlod (say hi!) 15:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arrival of storm chasers like Josh Morgerman and James Reynolds to the Philippines to observe the typhoon in Aurora has been covered by several news outlets:

I’m not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article. And if it does merit mentioning, under which section because their activities aren’t really about the meteorological history, preparation, or impact. —seav (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s a WP:ROUTINE affair here, unless God forbid something happened. Borgenland (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the usual formatting is for these articles but, for the people who care about the names, “Fung-wong” is a Jyutping romanization of the Cantonese pronunciation of the Chinese word 鳳凰／凤凰 (pinyin fènghuáng), meaning “(Chinese) phoenix“. — LlywelynII 04:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment