This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
2018–19 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
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
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
@Alex of Canada: Since it impacted land and caused significant damage I see no reason why someone couldnt write it. However, one would have to be careful since no significant damage was reported. Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how some editors can get the designations without any proof. They should be all removed within 24 hours unless there are solid evidences.-- 🐱💬07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go for removal @Meow: as none of the U numbers are currently able to be sourced or verified with the sole exception of Owen. However, with regards to Liua, I wrote to the BoM and challenged their forecast policy, as they hadnt issued a TWO or publically called it Tropical Low 01U and they wrote back and confirmed that they had called it but were not issuing any TWO's at that stage as it wasnt expected to be a TC in the Aus region.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Matthiasb: technically all 3 do publish them, however, it seems to only be when we get technical bulletins, TCR or the system is listed in the BT Database. Also we have to remember that some systems are probobaly at the disturbance level but i see no reason why we cant include them in Other systems since we are not allowed to pick and choose.Jason Rees (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article pertains to Savannah. Since we include the impacts of storms as precursors and remnants, this warrants inclusion in the article. As such, I have gone ahead and updated the article with the given source. By the way, Savannah was a tropical low at the time the article was written, not even a precursor low. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Just as B dash said, I found a source that specified that the impacts were as a result of Savannah. For some reason, the link I provided in the edit summary did not create a hyperlink. I must have had something wrong with the markup. I have provided the link again here. I will rewrite the section a little later on to improve the expression and grammar. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the port in Pilbara coast was closed due to Veronica, the iron can't be exported. We were not sure if this damage is related to Veronica or not. These two: [1][2] showed that Veronica is related to the damage, while this just indicated the damage, seems no relation to Veronica. Pinging @Hurricane Noah and ChocolateTrain: for this. --B dash (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I opposed was the raw value of the iron being counted as damages. If the economic part is added, that is fine. NoahTalk14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: The iron ore export delays certainly don’t count as damages, but they will have a significant impact on the economy. As such, I think it should be included in the season effects table and the season article info box as an economic impacts total. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the raw value of the iron had been counted originally rather than the economic damage caused by the delay. NoahTalk01:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - The Two-digit ending year style is commonly used in sources relating to the season while most of the other seasons are also styled this way as things stand.Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per the reasons above, and also because the current title has nothing wrong in its formatting. It's actually fine just the way it is, and this dating format is also used in numerous other articles across this site, including on every single Southern Hemisphere cyclone season article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I double checked with the BoM about Lorna who responded by telling me:
One of our experienced TC analysts had a close look at the microwave imagery and decided (like Reunion) that the centre stayed *just* west of 90E. So, like those "other editors" we plan to be pedantic and not include it in the numbers for the season or keep a record in our database. It's interesting to compare Lorna with Kenanga. Kenanga was in the Australian region for <6 hours; but since it was in the region at one stage, and even though operationally we reached agreement that Reunion would take it straight over from Indonesia (ie. we didn't issue any warnings for it), we will count Kenanga in the Australian region stats and we'll put Reunion's best track in our database. So we will have 9 TCs so far this season with a low-mod chance of another next week.
Comment@Jason Rees: Hi Jason and yeah it's been a while! So I believe we are experiencing a similar situation with 2015's Loke. In my opinion, we still include Lorna in the totals, although as a TL or as a TC. In fact, the BoM mentioned about "Ex-TC Lorna" entering the basin somewhere around 1/5 or 2/5? It is just up to other users to decide whether we include the STC Lorna from the 28th. Typhoon2013(talk)09:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013: Yeah is been a while but anyway per Wikipedia's rules on Original Research we can not include it in the stats as a TL, TC or STC as it never entered the region per both Reunion and BoM. We can give it a line or two in other systems though. I would also be curious to see the TWO's that say that the remnants entered the basin, as Reunion's trackfile shows that Lorna turned back westwards as it approached the Australian Region and became a post tropical cyclone before being dropped.Jason Rees (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BoM states in its weekly tropical climate note: "Another weaker system, ex-tropical cyclone Lorna, which peaked at an intensity comparable to an Australian category 3 system, dissipated over the central southern Indian Ocean in the past 24 hours, just west of the Australian tropical cyclone region."Jason Rees (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Then how should we deal with the write-up for Lorna's section in the South-West Indian Ocean basin article? The section currently states that Lorna exited the basin twice into the Australian region basin, which runs counter to the information that has been presented here. It looks like a rewrite might be in order, but I don't know exactly how this should be done. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: I agree that a rewrite is in order as the section says that JTWC called it a Cat 1 and a TS which they didnt and is OR. Anyway, for each system, there is a story to be told based on how it developed, weakened etc and in Lorna's specific case we can say that it straddled the border but that it did not cross.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The JTWC does not use the SSHWS in any of its advisories or the tropical storm label as they didnt, which as a result means that we shouldn't say that they upgraded it etc. Have a look for instance at Cyclone Raja or Cyclone Rewa. You will find that we do not directly say that the system was a Cat 1 SSHWS based on the JTWC etc just that it was equivalent to.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: I will concede that the system did not enter the region at tropical cyclone strength, despite what Météo-France's advisories indicate. However, as per the reference provided by Typhoon2013 above, which I included in both the SWIO Lorna section and this article's Lorna section when I wrote them, I think it is clear that the system still entered the Australian region as a tropical low. We still consider Ex-Tropical Cyclones to be tropical systems, and I should note that Météo-France declared the system post-tropical, not extra-tropical. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our hands are tied as the BoM distinctly say in the tropical ckimate note, that the system dissipated just west of 90E during April 30. We also have Lorna moving south-westwards away from the Australian Region in the build up to Reunions final point for Lorna at 89.1E. Also as far as I know a post tropical cyclone is not tropical and that it is also different to RA V's definition of an ex tropical cyclone which can still be tropical at times but is more likely to be extratropical in my experience. As a result, it is not clear that Lorna moved into Aus as a tropical low or that it became one before looking it's tropical characteristics.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This appears to be a storm that is not worthy of an article. It has no damages or deaths and lacks significant impacts. This honestly should not have an article. MergeNoahTalk01:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This storm is not that notable and impactful enough to deserve an article. In other words, this system did completely nothing to land which is why this doesn't need an article. Sandy14156:)02:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree. There weren't any interesting things about the storm and barely any impacts on land, if not none. Why would anyone make an article about this storm in the first place? Brandontracker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fundamentally disagree. The system was not just any old cyclone. It was a severe tropical cyclone which brought strong winds to several land areas, including gale-force in one instance, and produced very heavy rainfall in the far-northern Northern Territory. The system also hampered the efforts of shipping operators in getting ports back up and running following Veronica. It generated public interest within Australia due to its proximity to land in the Kimberley region, and due to fears that a repeat of Cyclone Veronica's devastation could have been brewing. This is evidenced by the following articles—just some of the sources which I could find: 123. Merging this article would be a negative outcome. A significant amount of information would be lost. The existence of this article is not a detriment to the WikiProject, it is not a detriment to Wikipedia, and it is not a detriment to publicly available knowledge. The existence of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are to prevent stub articles from being written due to a lack of information on the system. The article is well-written, well-structured; well-formatted; well-researched; free of grammatical errors, spelling errors and punctuation errors; effectively incorporates hyperlinks to useful Wikipedia pages; and is neutral in its point of view and coverage of topics. It is a genuinely useful, factual, interesting encyclopedic article which is the very best easily accessible detailed overview of the topic anywhere. There are zero benefits whatsoever to any person or any organization that could possibly result from deleting the article. It contains no damaging material, personal attacks, misleading content, factually inaccurate statements, poor prose, or anything at all which could conceivably act to harm anyone or anything whatsoever, and as such, there is no reasonably justifiable cause for deleting it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is... as you said, it could have been a repeat of Veronica. If it would have become a repeat, there would be some notability. Coverage in the media happens with practically every storm near land, regardless of whether it poses a threat or not. I did the exact same thing with Hurricane Norman. It isn't that your article is bad, it is just that Wallace itself lacks the notability required for an article separate from the season article. NoahTalk10:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it was thought to be a second Veronica, but it wasn't. It actually was just a regular old storm. I agree with Jasper Deng that the Meteorological history was highly verbose and mostly unnecessary. If you cut out the unnecessary parts of the article, the article will be very small. Brandontracker (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge This storm is highly unnoticeable since it does not impact land that much and there's nothing that makes it stick out at all.
INeedSupport:319:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Wallace was a system that caused little impact, and what impact info does exist can be added to the season page. Like others have said, please don't take this merge discussion personally. All of us editors have had our past works merged or deleted before. And while this article doesn't meet notability standards, it's very well written and sourced. We can definitely use your skills for more notable cyclones especially here in the southern hemisphere! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Not really a noticeable storm at all, only 75 mph for 6 hrs. I’d say Veronica needs a main article more than Wallace, as it’s intensification phase was remarkable, similar to Ernie — which has its own article. EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was: No Consensus for Merging. As there is currently no clear consensus (for the proposal) and since the discussion has obviously died out, I am formally closing this discussion. A new discussion can be initiated at a later time if/when editors change their minds on the subject. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work, but Ann just had minor impact on land, no deaths and major damage occurred. Thus the article should be merged. The original work can move back to userspace. --219.78.190.16 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, the storm only dissipated 3 days ago. Ann was a rare off-season storm, and affected several land areas. Let's wait for the final report on the storm, there could be more info out there on the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As Hurricanehink said, Ann was a rare off-season tropical cyclone (the strongest in the Australian region during May since 1997) that made landfall in a populated area as a tropical system. It also affected other regions throughout a relatively long lifespan. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Let's see what we are left with before rushing to make a decision. If this were a storm from multiple months ago, I would understand a merge, but this dissipated quite recently. NoahTalk20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Scope of the article is relatively small and the meteorological history is bloated so it seems like there's more information than there really is. Once that's trimmed down to an acceptable size I'd be more willing to gauge notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure if the article should be merged or not, but if there are post-analysis adjustments to the storm like decent damage figures, I will shift to a side. Brandontracker (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for finding that! Yes, I would definitely say that the flooding discussed in that article was caused by Savannah. The tropical low actually formed directly south of Bali, so this is a good source to show the damage there. I have added it into the main Cyclone Savannah article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a merge. In the nearly 10 days since this was initiated, there have been no comments in either support or opposition of a merge. I am hereby closing this discussion as a no consensus. Discussion may be reopened in the future at any time. NoahTalk03:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that an IP had started a merge in May. But that one may be WP:TOOSOON to decide. Almost half a year later, still there is no significant impact of the cyclone in Australia. Those winds and rainfall can be written in the season's section. I'm here to propose a second merge of Cyclone Ann. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose That is true, except that the editors had made an effort to create a well-done sourced article. As the result, I oppose the merge, as:
1:) The article is not only well-sourced, but focused on the main parts too;
and:
2:) For considering the editors' feelings when the article becomes merged. I mean, will the sources be in the infobox? A well-sourced article with many words should take for consideration.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
