Talk:Typhoon Rai

Fully protected

The following discussion 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 article has been fully protected for three days due to the ongoing dispute over the wording of the lede. Please discuss here to establish WP:CONSENSUS as to what the wording should be. Please note that editing the article because a friend asked you to back them up is against Wikipedia policy, and telling other editors "don't edit the lead, you'll start an edit war" can be seen as threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I personally did not ask him to back me up, we are just friends and we care for each other. But to agree, we need to use the correct lead Mickomicks (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Mickomicks (talk · contribs), you need to stop with the mentality of "we need to use the correct lead", because we are currently in the process of trying to figure that out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Me and the temporary account is just trying to help avoid the edit wars of the lead. The lead is what you see first. So if people like that temporary account number notice different leads, edit wars have a higher chance to happen, as the same lead lowers the chances of Direct Edit Mickomicks (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

One of the primary reasons i made my Wikipedia account was because of the different lead of Typhoon Yagi. If that lead wasnt changed, i would have not made my account. But the most primary reason i made this account was to explore Wikipedia, not change the lead of a Tropical Cyclone. I did not intentionally want edit war until i saw the change. Mickomicks (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Mickomicks (talk · contribs) - if you want to avoid the edit wars of the lead, then stop editing the lead of the article. There are many other parts of the article that need work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Me and the rest of the Philippines don’t just refer to it generally as simply “Odette”. Attributed sources from the Philippines use “Super Typhoon Odette”, including PAGASA and the rest of the Philippines. So its only fair that the best ideal lead for that name would be “Typhoon Rai, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Odette” Mickomicks (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally, i didn’t wanna say but i experienced the typhoon 4 years ago, which left me on blackout. Before PAGASA revised their categories, i had to simply say “Typhoon Odette”. But once it was revised and the requirement for a typhoon to be classified super typhoon was 185 km/h. I could finally say “Super Typhoon Odette” Mickomicks (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

And “Blackout” meant no electricity, i had non for 2 weeks until The end of New Year. Mickomicks (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

And for “i could finally say “Super Typhoon Odette””, the recorded 10 minute sustained wind speed was 195 km/h. And the requirement of a typhoon to be classified as a super typhoon in PAGASA’s System is 185 km/h, which Super Typhoon Odette exceeded with 195 km/h Mickomicks (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Without relying on other content and personal taste, can you explain why the lead should claim that it's known in the Philippines instead of by PAGASA? FourNoddlers (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there's some nuance and local preferences that we need to acknowledge, while at the same time not making the introduction too long. The problem with calling it "Super Typhoon Odette" was that it wasn't called that at the time. The problem with referring to PAGASA in the first sentence is that the agency needs to be acknowledged. And also, if you say "known in the Philippines as...", then you'll be saying the Philippines twice in the same sentence, as the opening sentence later says how the typhoon "severely affected the Philippines in mid-December 2021". So I've thought about it and want to pitch a possible solution, for Rai and other typhoons significant in the Philippines:

Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette, was an unusually powerful, deadly, and extremely destructive late-season tropical cyclone which severely affected the Philippines in mid-December 2021, becoming the second-costliest typhoon in the country's history behind Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.

The note would be at the bottom of the article. This way, the technical information can get mentioned, the acronym can be spelled out, and PAGASA's scale change can all be mentioned. The exact wording of the note can be changed. I'll also crosspost this to the main discussion on the project talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Instead of PAGASA, the Philippine Citizens call it “Super Typhoon Odette”. PAGASA is a filipino agency, and the Philippines’ have citizens. So if you combine PH and PAGASA, together they form the Philippines we have today. Mickomicks (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, your saying “it isn’t called at that time”. It has been 4 years since that event happened. And most of the Philippines will call it “Super Typhoon Odette” Mickomicks (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The note mentions that it was called "Super Typhoon Odette". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers, it is known to the Philippines instead of just PAGASA is because the reason PAGASA even assigned local names is for the Filipinos to start preparing better. Since PAGASA is from the Philippines, and operated by Filipinos of course, it is part of the wider Philippine Country. And most of us call the storms by its local name (if the local name is announced by PAGASA). Well, don’t say this did not work, because it is working now. Ever since Typhoon Haiyan (Super Typhoon Yolanda) ended, we started to prepare better. And if PAGASA didn’t make the idea of local names and Typhoon Haiyan avoiding Philippine Landfall, the Philippines would not have been how it works today. Mickomicks (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted my question, so I will clarify it. Without relying on other content or personal taste as a reason, why should the lead sentence state Typhoon Rai, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Odette instead of Typhoon Rai, known as Super Typhoon Odette by PAGASA? FourNoddlers (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That is the answer already. Mickomicks (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your argument answers it is known to the Philippines instead of just PAGASA. That is not what I asked. FourNoddlers (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Why not just "Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette" and have all of the PAGASA information in a note? That way the technical information can get a mention, just not in direct prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Don’t make that change in this article aswell, the intensity must be included. Every other Storm article is like this: Typhoon/Severe Tropical Storm/Tropical Storm (Insert Name), known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon/Typhoon/Severe Tropical Storm/Tropical Storm/Tropical Depression (Insert name). Mickomicks (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The intensity is included in the note, with the mention of when it was known as a Super Typhoon. What is your opposition to that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not a convincing argument because you are relying on other articles to reject a proposal. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

To stop this, maybe include the intensity on the lead. That helps Mickomicks (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Like “Typhoon Rai, known in PH (Philippines) as Super Typhoon Odette” Mickomicks (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Mickomicks (talk · contribs), your unwillingness will engage in compromise suggests you are not here to productively contribute to the encyclopedia. If no one else has any further opposition, I will implement my proposed change to this article. I believe that could be a good template for significant PAGASA typhoons. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, i am starting to agree now that we should have shorter leads. So yes, go on Mickomicks (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

What about the following? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

So, your okay with the edit of the temporary account? Mickomicks (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It wasn’t me Mickomicks (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette, was an unusually powerful, deadly, and extremely destructive late-season tropical cyclone which severely affected the Philippines in mid-December 2021, becoming the second-costliest typhoon in the country's history behind Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.

I implemented the above change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone doesnt agree Mickomicks (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If that someone is you, then please tell me why you disagree with it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Wasnt me Mickomicks (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You said "someone doesn't agree" as a response to my message. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t say it was me Mickomicks (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Mickomicks (talk · contribs), at 23:52, you wrote "Someone doesnt agree", but at that point, it was my edit implementing the above intro, and then FourNoddlers who copyedited it. You are either psychic (this edit was four minutes after yours), or you are logging out to edit anonymously to implement change, which is a form of sockpuppetry and can get you blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mickomicks:, can you explain the above? It sounds a lot like you used the temporary account two minutes after you made your "Someone doesnt agree" comment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I think i have an idea Mickomicks (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Instead of Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette, what about simply Typhoon Rai (Super Typhoon Odette), we can implement these on Tropical Cyclone Articles that were a super typhoon [eg. Typhoon Haiyan (Super Typhoon Yolanda)]

without having to even mention the Philippines on one of the very first parts Mickomicks (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If there is no more complaining, i will implement the change to make the lead even shorter Mickomicks (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Or “Typhoon Rai (Odette)” as an alternative if you don’t agree Mickomicks (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mickomicks: - stop reverting the lead and stop using multiple accounts to push your point of view. If you'd like to discuss changes, please do so here. @Mastercane F X: - your recent edit was not helpful, please don't accuse people of "ruining this". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

fine then Mastercane F X (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want shorter leads, then lets use my other idea Mickomicks (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"Typhoon Rai (Odette)" is awkward, and so is having anything in parenthesis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

“Awkward”, then why is the name on the infobox? Mickomicks (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

First off, please wait until the discussion is done before changing the lead, as you've been warned multiple times. Also, the infobox doesn't need to be in a complete sentence, but the first sentence should be. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you realize this line that has a parentheses?

“On March 23, 2022, as PAGASA revised their Categories, Rai (Odette) was considered a super typhoon” Mickomicks (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not the opening sentence. The whole purpose of all of these discussions is because the opening of the article has to be accurate, make sense, all while introducing the topic. Odette is an alternate name, which is allowed to be mentioned, just so that "Philippines" isn't mentioned twice in the same sentence, and so that you're not mentioning PAGASA in the first sentence either. As an acronym, you have to explain what PAGASA is, which, if spelled out, also mentions the Philippines again. Having it in parenthesis in the first few words might make it confusing what's going on. The point of these discussions is to create an ideal introduction. Does that make sense? Do you disagree with any of it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If the lead was not shortened in the first place, then we would not be arguing about which lead it is. @Mastercane F X is actually right, if we just keep changing the lead like shortening it or changing it (eg. “Super Typhoon Odette” to “Typhoon Odette”, or “Severe Tropical Storm Enteng” to “Super Typhoon Enteng or whatsoever). The lead is what we see first. Since we can’t do anything about the Typhoon Yagi lead, we are not touching it anymore. Typhoon Yagi can be an exception of the standard leading, but not every single Tropical Cyclone Article. And what you said in one of the talk pages of Yagi, you mentioned an edit war of Yagi and Rai, which did happen. But you reverted my edit in Typhoon Koto to your own version which is “Known in the Philippines as Verbena”, which did not even have an edit war (and the change happened after my comment in Talk: Typhoon Koto). So please, use the standard leading. Mickomicks (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hurricanehink - Do you have anything to say about why you reverted my edit to your own version on Typhoon Koto? Mickomicks (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea what Mastercane F X is right about. They only said "fine then" in this discussion, and made an edit to the article saying people were "ruining this", neither of which added anything to this discussion. Next, this talk page is about Typhoon Rai, and this discussion should be about that. I've also told you multiple times that there is a discussion also going on at the project talk page about Philippine typhoon leads in general. The issue with "standard leading" is that every typhoon is different, so some intro sentences might have to be different than others, especially in cases where you want to avoid saying Philippines twice in the same sentence. Do you have anything further to say about Rai? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, it was being ruined when we were mentioning PAGASA because PAGASA is not just an agency, its part of the larger Philippines Country. So saying “Typhoon Rai, also known as Super Typhoon Odette/(or just “Odette”)” would not include the Philippines for knowing the local name, the literal full name for PAGASA (or DOST-PAGASA) is Department of Science and Technology - Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration Mickomicks (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

And just answer my question on my talk page: User talk: Mickomicks Mickomicks (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I meant “Typhoon Rai, also known as Super Typhoon Odette/(or just) “Odette” by PAGASA Mickomicks (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Mickomicks, what are your disputes with the current opening sentence? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I want Rai to be back as, "Typhoon Rai," known in the Philippines as "Super Typhoon Odette"" has how it is supposed to be written down. Mastercane F X (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mastercane F X:, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section before you say how things are supposed to be written down. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Mickomicks, did you click on the link next to "Odette"? It went into PAGASA and the typhoon being called Super Typhoon Odette, just as a note to go into further detail without disrupting the sentence flow. But the whole point is not to say "Philippines" twice in the same sentence. You don't need to say "known in the Philippines as", when the opening sentence says the typhoon affected the Philippines. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Then change “severely affected the Philippines” to “severely affected the Visayas and Mindanao regions” so we dont have to mention the country again, but something FROM the country without referring to it as a whole Mickomicks (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Or we could keep it as it is, I don't see what the problem is, and you aren't being clear about why you oppose it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks, should the lead sentence include the phrase Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette...?

@Mastercane F X, I said if you cannot explain the problem without using fallacies, do not "fix" it, yet you ignored my advice. If you're going to implement your preferred changes, can you at least explain the problem with using the phrase Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette... in the lead sentence without using fallacies? FourNoddlers (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I am done, you all do what you want with the article Mastercane F X (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If you won't participate in this discussion, do not restore your preferred changes to Typhoon Rai. FourNoddlers (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the problem about mentioning the same country 2 times on the same sentence? Mickomicks (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong with mentioning the Philippines 2 times Mickomicks (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks, should the lead sentence include the phrase Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette...? FourNoddlers (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not know, ask @Hurricanehink, he made the edit. Mickomicks (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking for your opinion. FourNoddlers (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers, for my opinion, i would oppose this idea because its what the creator of the article or whatsoever that made this article’s lead Mickomicks (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

That's appeal to tradition. The community cannot keep whatever "the creator of the article or whatsoever" wrote for the lead just because they wrote it. FourNoddlers (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Mickomicks (talk · contribs), you were the one who said "Someone doesnt agree " when I first talked about implementing the proposed change. You never said why you disagree with it, other than asking what the problem is saying Philippines twice - the problem is that it's redundant and bad writing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink I said it now after replying to @FourNoddlers Mickomicks (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Respect @Mastercane F X, the edits like these were unnecessary Mickomicks (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Mickomicks, you have been temporarily blocked from editing the mainspace of articles because you continue engaging in edit warring. You have been one of the main opponents of the current wording (Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette), and you continue to try and change it without explaining why you oppose it. Can you explain your edits? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring? I only edited it twice Mickomicks (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You've edited the article ten times, you were blocked back in December for reverting more than 3 times in a day, and you've been warned repeatedly not to edit war, and yet you haven't explained your opposition to the wording, other than saying "there's nothing wrong with mentioning the same country 2 times in the same sentence", which, no, there is something wrong with that. There needs to be a better argument than we need to do exactly as you say. You don't own the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Just tell me, why do we have to shorten the lead like this, the new lead has started an edit war, just leave the lead of the article alone and change “severely affected the Philippines” to “severely affected the central and southern areas of the country”. I was planning to change the line “becoming the second costliest typhoon” to “becoming the second costliest tropical cyclone”. I have no choice anymore but to blame you for ruining my planned project, and in 2 days, my school has already started. Thanks @Hurricanehink for ruining my planned project for the line. Mickomicks (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am severely mad Mickomicks (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I told you before, it was bad writing having it say "Philippines" twice in the same sentence. You can still work on the project, as I've said before, there's still work to do in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Look at the latest message i sent after you said i was blocked

But still, i have no choice anymore but to blame you for ruining my next project Mickomicks (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The project involves editing, by the way Mickomicks (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

And i decided to implement it Mickomicks (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This would have ended on a more positive note had you stopped edit warring over the lead sentence. The discussion is way longer than it should have been, everyone's exhausted from the discussion that may end without a clear consensus, and you can't edit the article for 72 hours. This is why I asked you to focus on a different topic. If you want to avoid these situations in the future, and possibly worse outcomes, I recommend following the advice editors have given you. FourNoddlers (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not the one who made the first edit of the shortening leads Mickomicks (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. What matters is that you continued to change the lead sentence more than five times during the discussion, despite many editors telling you to stop. Because of your actions, it is unlikely that the community would support any of your proposals for now. If you really believe the lead sentence should be changed, take a long break from this discussion and come back when the atmosphere has cooled and you're ready to discuss. Do not change the lead sentence at all during your break. FourNoddlers (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am so done with everything, ever since i joined all of you were changing leads like its free, i am not saying i own everything. But yes, i am just so tired with these reckless reverts. Like when Mastercane F X tried to restore the original lead, you recklessly reverted it like it didn’t matter that it should state that the Philippines was severely affected and was known as Super Typhoon Odette or the line must say “Typhoon Rai, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Odette, was an unusually powerful, deadly, and extremely destructive late season tropical cyclone which severely affected the Philippines in mid-December 2021, becoming the second costliest typhoon in the country’s history behind Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.” The block also ruined my project to change “second costliest typhoon” to “second costliest tropical cyclone”. So yes, i am quitting Wikipedia and i am ready to clear my user page. Mickomicks (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Instead of taking a break, ili quit Mickomicks (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Infact, quit my Wikipedian Life Mickomicks (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink I wished I was blocked for 72 hours. Please block me. Mastercane F X (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make such a request. Nothing productive resulted from this discussion, and further comments would be unhelpful. I'll put this thread out of its misery and close it. FourNoddlers (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2026 (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.

Lead (again)

@FourNoddlers: - sigh, the Philippines was already mentioned in the opening sentence, so PAGASA doesn't need to be mentioned in the first sentence. But I won't revert again since I don't want an edit war. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The phrasing makes it clear who named it and where it is applied without needing to read the note. No information is being repeated in the first sentence, so the sentence contains no redundancies. FourNoddlers (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mastercane F X, you insisted Hink is right and that the leads in typhoon articles that have Philippine typhoon names shouldn't be written down like this. The way the sentence is currently written requires reading the note to understand who named the cyclone Odette, where it is locally known, and why it has two names. All of that can be explained by associating the name with PAGASA. About redundancy, read the comment above. FourNoddlers (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers No it isn't. Draft:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Weather events clearly states "For storms tracked by PAGASA, only state the name assigned by the agency due to past disputes." Please stop reverting. seems like this was a while ago. GiftedIceCream 15:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Inviting involved user @MarioProtIV. FourNoddlers (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

NO ONE REVERT THIS TIME Mickomicks (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Someone else made it clear Mickomicks (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks Please don't shout. You don't own any articles, and no one needs to agree with you. GiftedIceCream 14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I was not shouting Mickomicks (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks: - you wrote in all caps, which reads like you’re screaming. You also didn’t acknowledge what GIC said, that you don’t own the article, so you can’t say “NO ONE REVERT”. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok… but should we just close the discussion? I mean i did not really care that we needed to include PAGASA in the lead sentence. Mickomicks (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

And i wrote it at all caps as a notice because i was in a rush that i had no time to make it bold Mickomicks (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If you don’t care about what’s included in the opening of the article, then please stop focusing on only the opening of the article. I’ve told you before that there are lots of topics on Wikipedia that need work. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Did i even say that we need to restore the first lead? Mickomicks (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

And i dont care if we need to talk about Rai or whatsoever but just to ask, is tropical cyclone articles from Wikipedia allowed for School use? Because my class has a Performance Task that you need to conduct research on a strong typhoon that hit the Philippines. Since i am from the Visayas. The most common storm that the class picked is Super Typhoon Odette (Rai) (which i hope they wont mess this report up due to the fact that some dont know about the reclassification). Some picked Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) because it was so notable even kids knew its history. And since i know storms they might not know, i am working on Super Typhoon Pepito (Man-yi) Mickomicks (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Lead dispute

I noticed that there is a content dispute regarding the lead sentence on this page. I am here to attempt to resolve this dispute. I have made a list of possible lead sentences:

1. Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette,(current sentence)
2. Typhoon Rai, locally named Odette by PAGASA,
3. Typhoon Rai, known in the Philippines as Odette,
4. Typhoon Rai, locally named Super Typhoon Odette,
5. Typhoon Rai, locally named Super Typhoon Odette by PAGASA,
6. Typhoon Rai, known in the Philippines as Super Typhoon Odette,
7. Typhoon Rai, named Odette by PAGASA,
8. Typhoon Rai, named Super Typhoon Odette by PAGASA,

Pinging involved parties @Hurricanehink@Mickomicks@Mastercane F X@Cyclonista22@User:MarioProtIV@FourNoddlers. I would like your opinions. GiftedIceCream 15:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No to options 3 or 6, or any option that says "Philippines" twice in the opening sentence. I prefer option 1 or 2 (and if option 2, get rid of "locally"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink Added options 7 and 8. GiftedIceCream 19:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I still prefer option 1, as the vast majority of impacts were in the Philippines, but option 7 also works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

What if the majority of the impacts were not in the Philippines? GiftedIceCream 15:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

For typhoon articles where the Philippines did not have the majority of the impacts, then I don't think the PAGASA name is needed in the opening sentence. Take Typhoon Maemi - it technically had a PAGASA name, but I don't think that should be in the opening sentence, since Pogi wasn't a name that was often used for the storm. If there were Philippine deaths or decent Philippine impacts, then it makes sense to use option 7. The main thing I don't want to see is the term "typhoon" or "Philippines" appear multiple times in the opening sentence, nor should the opening sentence be too long. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess i prefer no. 2 Mickomicks (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

But if it was not really a problem, i would choose 4 Mickomicks (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks: I hope you don't mind that I reordered so it doesn't appear that you're responding to me, but to the topic in general. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I didnt even notice Mickomicks (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

6 rather Mickomicks (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why? GiftedIceCream 00:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, i personally dont like explanations, but it is better because the readers will know where the name came from (Philippines). Only “locally” is confusing. Mickomicks (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

And dont even hit me with the notes, not everyone reads them Mickomicks (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

How is "locally" confusing if there is only one country mentioned in a sentence? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. Should we move this to WPTC to attract more editors? GiftedIceCream 15:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but please mention me in comments i need to see cause in the WPTC im not that active. Mickomicks (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricab ehink should I tale thid to WPTC, RFC or DRN?GiftedIceCream 05:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Worser spelling than a three year-old GiftedIceCream 19:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Invite @AutisticYapper, he is currently trying to restore the original lead Mickomicks 13:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hes also editing the lead to the original lead Mickomicks 13:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not realize this was a discussion, my bad on that. I just figured it was non-standard for what is normally done with tropical cyclones, hence the revert. You can revert that edit, but I feel like the other edit I did at the same time just corrected factually incorrect info. Apologies if I caused any trouble here. AutisticYapper (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Will note that of the options presented above, I prefer option 7, but option 1 (what it is now) also works. Again, apologies for the change, I didn't realize a discussion was being had on the subject. AutisticYapper (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Its ok, but we have a new rule for Tropical cyclone articles due to past disputes, and it applies to most of the storms published so far. I also prefer No. 6 but i cant apply it anymore because i cant risk a total ban. The new lead for TC articles are now “Typhoon [insert name], known locally as[insert name], locally named [insert name] or named [insert name] by PAGASA, it can be any of these examples, as long as it only includes the PAGASA name (no “Typhoon” or whatsoever intensity that exists in storms) Mickomicks 14:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

alright, thank you for letting me know. AutisticYapper (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Your welcome Mickomicks 22:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The proof is found at some point in Draft:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Weather events Mickomicks 22:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticYapper@Mickomicks Note that the Mos is a draft. GiftedIceCream 23:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mastercane FRX9500S GiftedIceCream 17:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)