Talk:Typhoon Goni/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 5 February 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jalen Folf (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Typhoon Goni (2020) → Typhoon Goni – The corresponding PAGASA name, Rolly, was retired by the aforementioned agency, and redirects to this page. In addition, the pageviews for Goni 20average around 700 per day, while the pageviews for Goni 2015 average around 15 per day. This storm occurred more than three months ago, so WP:RECENTISM does not hold up here. As for the retirement arguments, Typhoon Molave and Typhoon Vamco were moved from Molave (2020) and Vamco (2020), respectively, after their corresponding PAGASA names were retired. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – This storm was simply record-breaking, including having the most intense recorded landfall for any tropical cyclone worldwide. PAGASA has retired the name Rolly, and Goni will almost certainly be retired at this point. Given these facts, this storm is clearly the main topic when it comes to the various storms with the name "Goni." Given our past practices (moving a storm article to the primary topic after such a retirement), we should make this article the main topic as well. This storm is more notable than the other Gonis in every way, especially given the pending retirement (except for the damage estimate and the death toll - but the others didn't kill that many people either). Today, when most people think about "Goni," it will probably be this storm rather than 2015's Typhoon Goni or any other storm with the same name. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. If the storm is retired, then the year should be dropped from the page title. MarioJump83! 10:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Netural - Don't count your chickens before they have hatched - the name Goni has not been proposed to the Typhoon committee for retirement by PAGASA. I also note that Goni is not the outright strongest Landfall ever recorded since we have to remember that the JMA is the official warning centre and uses 10-min winds. Jason Rees (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Super Strong Support Per nominator HurricaneEdgar 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Destroyeraa and L&D2000. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Super Strong Support 64.58.253.130 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support I also believe it's right. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support It’s been retired, so I think this is a no-brainer. CodingCyclone ^{citation needed} 23:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - to be honest at the time of the last RM, given what people were saying, I assumed that the damage caused this typhoon was being massively understated at the time. I assumed it would eventually overtake the 2015 one in deaths and damages. Three months on though, it seems that didn't happen. The raw stats are: 2015 Goni: 74 deaths, $1.05 billion damages; 2020 Goni: 32 deaths, $415 damages. So on both the indicators which matter most, the 2015 storm is way ahead. If anything, that should be primary, but certainly the 2020 one is not primary. It seems the only possible reason this might be moved is (a) the greater wind speeds, or (b) the fact that the name has now been retired. But really to quote Cyclonebiskit from the last RM, "the human impact far outweighs meteorological aspects when it comes to how most people remember weather phenomena". By both main measures, 2015 was worse than this one. This isn't even a close decision IMHO, and I'm genuinely baffled why so many people think it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging everyone from the previous recent discussion who hasn't yet participated here, so they are aware this is being rediscussed now and can say whether they think anything has changed since November: @Lugnuts, Jasper Deng, LightandDark2000, Cyclonebiskit, ChessEric, Calidum, CyclonicallyDeranged, Hiwilms, KyuuA4, Chlod, ShyAlpaca482, Ivanvector, Liamyangll, Hansen Sebastian, LSGH, Darwgon0801, Hamham31, Chicdat, and Jurisdicta:.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Super Strong Support - People are arguing over the fact that Goni '15 caused more damages, hence giving this article the "removal of year" treatment would be unwarranted. However, Goni has officially been retired by the WMO, this was the final usage of the name and so the year should be dropped. If I can give an example, the Wiki Page for Hurricane Juan in the Atlantic leads to the 2003 Storm. Why? Because that was when Juan was retired. However, Hurricane Juan in 1985 caused far more damages and fatalities, yet that has the year on it. Why? Because the 2003 one was retired, making Juan 2003 the more remembered storm and so it should be the main storm. With this logic, Goni should be given the same treatment. Plus, this was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, making a record-breaking landfall, going further to cause more devastation in Vietnam given the multiple storms that impacted the area beforehand, and soon afterwards as well. Goni '20 is going to be more remembered. It's also the retired version. It's a no brainer! This move has to happen. VantaWiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (or should I say uber, duper oppose?). The damage caused by each storm is too close to decide one is the primary topic over the other at this point. The idea that recentism is no longer an issue because three months has passed is absurd; of course the more recent storm will continue to get more page views in the short-term. -- Calidum 18:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per reasoning from Destroyeraa, LightandDark2000, and VantaWiki. Retired names should have years separated from their article. Goni '15 may have done more damage, but it wasn't retired, so that's not a valid reason to keep the year on Goni '20.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. (wall of text) Everyone's presented some good arguments here, to a point where I had trouble deciding on whether I should agree or not. When someone thinks of a storm, it's very likely that they've already considered the year that it formed, which is why it interests me on why there's a lot of editors invested in changing the title just to drop the year. On the provided points, there's mentions of (a) the removal of the year whenever a name is retired, a common and established pattern seen in other retired Pacific typhoons, so this should be a given. I feel like this is part of WPTC's problem where there's a lot of hidden rules that you only get after conversing with older members, or after making that mistake and having another member revert you, which is because there's no clear documentation on WPTC's processes. There's also (b) the fact that the storm broke records in the WPac basin, however I think that simply breaking a record does not contribute in making an article the primary topic. I don't think the average Joe would even think of Goni as "record-breaking", considering all discussions that I've seen of it being record breaking so far have been isolated to weather-interested groups. This point would have been stronger if Goni retained its strength after crossing Catanduanes, but it immediately sheared right after landfall - nearly dissipating in the process. The next point is that (c) the damage and deaths of G' 2015 outweigh 2020, which would be agreeable, if not the fact that Goni 2020 sheared after landfall - causing its damages in other countries to be minimal. When you compare the Philippine damages (the area of its "strongest landfall"), it shows as US$97.6 million (2015) to US$369 million. Damages and deaths all come down to a matter of perspective. Most of G' 2015's damages were from its impact in Japan - a country with primarily-Japanese-speaking citizens, who would look at their own article for Typhoon No. 15 - which also causes the "(d) pageviews of G' 2020 surpass 2015's" argument to be a given. This, however, is actually the best determinant for the primary topic, as even PTOPIC's page cites pageviews as a valid determinant of the primary topic. Pageviews can't be considered under RECENTISM either, as comparing the first 3 months of both articles yields that G' 2015 had less attention after the first few weeks than G' 2020, implying that 2015's drop in page views was bound to happen one way or another. Given the larger amount of pageviews, the average damages relative to affected countries, the retirement of the name, and the overall long-term advantage of a page move, I'm giving this a support. It might be worth it to improve this article to GA status as well, considering that G' 2015 is a GA. I'd also like to say that mere "super duper strong support in the whole entire galaxy" entries barely hold weight if you don't contribute to consensus. Stop voting! Chlod (say hi!) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support per the above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It is now established as the most notable storm by that name. This standard is already set as precedent by other storm names. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)]
• Support. Per reasoning from KyuuA4. Also, this is a page that would likely be of more importance than a storm from 2015 (albeit doing more damage). Liamyangll (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support there is little to add to what has already been said. The name has been retired and the argument to support this greatly outweighs the opposition. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• OK now I will Strongly Support in this one, since there are now more evidence that this typhoon was the WORST to hit on our country with over billions of pesos in total damage, plus it was now known as the MOST STRONGEST TYPHOON of the year 2020 too after reaching super typhoon category / Category 5. (BTW, there is still something wrong with my signature, as I'am only using a smartphone to contribute here in WP right now) Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 14:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main argument for the move is summarised by User:LightandDark2000 when they refer to "past practices (moving a storm article to the primary topic after such a retirement)". I am not aware of any wikipedia policy that mandates we do that. Comparing both articles they look quite similar in importance and long-term significance, so I'd say there is no primary topic. Vpab15 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The retired storm is the one that should be the primary topic, as is our usual convention. It's not our place to second guess the experts who decide if a storm is significant enough to merit retirement. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Buidhe: whoah, what's the rationale behind this one? Typhoon Goni (2015) had (according to infobox) 74 fatalities and $1.05 billion damages, whereas this one has 32 deaths and $415 million damages. All I can see is that the wind speeds were higher in the more recent one, but other than that I'm struggling to see why we'd think the 2020 cyclone is primary over the 2015. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  All I can say is that the participants in the move request were unanimous in believing it was PRIMARY, so I believe that as closer I should close the discussion accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: but you must have been persuaded by the arguments, if you chose to move it? RM discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, and the decision to move or not is based on reasoned arguments. Anyway, is there any chance you could relist it because this makes no sense whatsoever, and the arguments and comments of the previous RM - which seem to still be valid now - have been largely ignored. I completely missed this discussion, otherwise I would have certainly opposed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  OK, reopened if you think that would be useful. When closing a discussion, I only evaluate the arguments made in the discussion. The argument that the 2015 storm invalidated the primary topic status of the 2020 storm was not made during the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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.