Talk:Cyclone Senyar

Cyclone crossing the Western Pacific according to JMA's 9 PM 11/27 Weather Map

Should that info be added as the first tropical cyclone to cross from North Indian Ocean to Western Pacific? I feel like I haven't seen a tropical cyclone crossed from North Indian Ocean to Western Pacific until Cyclone Senyar. Tz fz (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too early so it would be OR. I'll expand the meteorological history later though Z E T A^C 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tz fz: We would need a source for your assertion that Senyar is the first to cross from the Indian Ocean to the Western Pacific, however, if we are using 100E as the boundary, then I think its worth remembering that the 1991 Bangladesh Cyclone reached 99.7E as a TS per the JTWC and Nargis which reached 98.5E as a TD per the JTWC. Ablit these two systems were over land and never moved into the Pacific Ocean, but then by that argument, Senyar has yet to move into the Pacific Ocean, since it's currently over Malaysia.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Senyar is on the sea as of 0000 11/28 UTC, JMA started dropping forecast on Senyar too and expected to intensify into a Tropical Storm, if JMA's forecasts are correct, although JTWC hasn't started re-monitoring Senyar yet...

Source: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/multi/cyclone/cyclone_detail.html?id=61&lang=en Tz fz (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I included the first forecast in the met history section. Remains to be seen however if the JMA will track it as the same system or an entirely different system. Maybe the article could be moved to a different title to accommodate both, like Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. Z E T A^C 02:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

JTWC started re-monitoring Senyar as a remnant low (04B), although it is now located on ABPW10. Source: https://archive.fo/vssD8 (I have archived the latest snapshot) Tz fz (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

JTWC doesn't consider it a TC yet, then, but that's a good sign Z E T A^C 13:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Questionable reports from Central and Northern Thailand

Currently the article attributes fatalities in Northern and Central Thailand (along the Chao Phraya River) to Senyar. I have my doubts that those are related. I assume that the fatalities occured during severe rainfall events earlier this Month. Heavy flooding affects 15 provinces; 13 dead in Central and Northern Regions

From my knowledge there has not been significant rainfall in the recent week in Central Thailand which could have caused the mentioned fatalities given in the source, so it might be more like a summary of events this month. ~2025-35106-32 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding, the flooding in Hat Yai/Southern Thailand was caused by the LPA which was the precursor of Senyar as well as the monsoon trough. The flooding in Malaysia/Sumatra was entirely caused by Senyar or its precursor. I'm not too sure about Central or Northern Thailand, but that seems unlikely and could probably be cut. Z E T A^C 15:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

By now i´d even say that the extremely high death toll reported is untrue and got published to make the government look bad, but thats my Opinion. But what we should include is, that the official death toll in Songkhla is 140 and not 200 and that the Northern Fatalities did not occour with Senyar or its precoursor. ~2025-37477-24 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, can someone please have a look into the Fatality Numbers from Northern and Central Thailand? Its obvious that the article used as scource talks about two different events, the flood event in the South (Senyar) and the Flood Event along the Chao Phraya which already occured in early November and is unrelated to Senyar. Wikipedia is mixing up numbers here. ~2025-37905-96 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Question for adding information about the earthquake

Should information be added about the magnitude 6.6 earthquake that struck near Sinabang, Sumatra, Indonesia on November 27? The strong earthquake happened at the same time Senyar impacted Sumatra. Pogowo (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not, though we should probably refrain from adding a connection between both events explicitly before an RS confirms it. Z E T A^C 15:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Move back title to Cyclone Senyar?

While I appreciate the attempt by MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) for consistency, the JTWC did say that 34W was a regeneration of Senyar, and they continued numbering the advisories from when it was a NIO storm, so I think it should be moved back to just Cyclone Senyar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as JMA is likely to name this as a new system when it reaches TS on their scale. I cited Matmo/Bulbul and other examples because the impacts are still from the same overall system. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

And if it doesn't become a TS? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion, but I moved it back. The JTWC is a subagency, and we usually don't use their numbering schemes in article titles. Z E T A^C 20:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Per above: oppose the move to ...and TD 34W, but if the JMA names it something else when/if it becomes a TS, we can rename it Cyclone Senyar and Tropical Storm ... Z E T A^C 20:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree to keep the name "Cyclone Senyar" for now, and we can change it to "Cyclone Senyar and Tropical Storm ..." if JMA indeed gives this system a new name then. What I do not understand is how come JTWC decided to give it a new number, 34W? JTWC used to always keep the same number when TCs (even if once downgraded to disturbances) cross oceans. Ernestnywang (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's due to it regenerating after becoming a remnant low, but the low-level circulation remained so it's the same system. IIRC, we can also name it something like Cyclone Senyar-Nokaen (next name on the list) if it isn't particularly notable in WPAC (I think its record in NIO is pretty hard to beat at this point, a near-Kuala Lumpur landfall is bonkers) Z E T A^C 23:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

But Nokaen isn’t a cyclone (or cyclonic storm) it’s a typhoon (or tropical storm), so we have to separate them. Probably should name it more like Matmo and Bulbul 2019. Ilikereadinespeciallyenglishbooks (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe the naming convention is whichever one is more significant or notable - if one easily overtakes the other, then it gets the prefix. Z E T A^C 03:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

But the same happened to Matmo (weakened to remnant low before re-developing into a tropical cyclone), but JTWC kept the 23W designator (https://goatysnews.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/wp2319.gif). The discussion on page title probably became moot, though, now that JMA has taken away the Gale Warning. Ernestnywang (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The naming convention became unclear after JMA stopped tracking the storm under a Gale Warning, even though it was expected to develop into a tropical storm. HurricaneEdgar 11:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thailand's uncertain death toll

The official death toll in Thailand is up to 200. (Source: https://www.tnnthailand.com/social/218599/) However, while finding more sources to add in more info on the floods in Thailand, I came across multiple sources reporting a much higher toll.

Surachate Hakparn, who was formerly Deputy Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, said that the death toll in Songkhla province was 550, and criticized the Thai government for underreporting fatalities. (Source: https://www.thaipost.net/x-cite-news/905429/) Additionally, rescue workers claim that 1,000 people may have been killed in the floods in the province, although that figure remains unconfirmed. (Source: https://www.amarintv.com/news/politic/531554)

How should we respond to these debated figures, especially since only the lower figure is confirmed? Quake1234 (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Quake1234: common practice is to report the number as a range (e.g. 200–550) or by the lowest number (>200 or 200+) if multiple reliable sources have a higher count than the official sources. At the very least the higher numbers should be mentioned in the body of the article, per WP:Conflicting sources (or with enough coverage in its own section, like on Hurricane Otis). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: just realised that's what's already in the article, so not much else to be done then except to keep updating as new sources drop. As always with major disasters the fatality count will take a while to stabilise... ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Number of deaths from districts

In the Indonesia section of this article, the number of deaths is drilled down to the regency. While this number is important, some of these numbers aren't updated and may not reflect the reality on the ground. For instance, as of Saturday evening (Indonesia time) reliable sources reported the death toll is West Sumatra is 90, while the article stated that 121 was killed. How do we approach this? Should we change the 121 number that had been written? Or add another paragraph? It is also very likely that "regency details" wouldn't be updated in the days to come. How to approach this matter? Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 13:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Death counts

My opinion is that we should go by the lowest number confirmed in a reliable source. There's a lot of unreliable sources which aren't exactly verifiable, and some are self-published as well. Z E T A^C 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we have title change to “Cyclone Senyar and Tropical Depression 34W”

Read the title of what I posted Jiiiiiiiii (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the above discussion (Move back title to Cyclone Senyar?): Oppose. The JTWC isn't the RSMC (Regional Specialized Meteorological Center) of the WPAC basin - it's a sub-agency. Additionally, the JTWC has stated that 34W is a regeneration/continuation of Senyar. If the JMA gives it another name, we can change the name then, provided it is also notable in that basin. The article wasn't originally named "Tropical Depression 04B", so I don't see a reason to make an exception here. Z E T A^C 18:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It's the same system, per JTWC themselves. SolarisPenguin (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not notable yet as 34W, COMMONNAME is Cyclone Senyar.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay then. The article name will stay the same. Jiiiiiiiii (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, not notable yet. HurricaneEdgar 01:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Ernestnywang (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Let's close this when the time is right. Jiiiiiiiii (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not an official discussion (RM), so it doesn't need to be closed. HurricaneZeta^C 23:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Condensing infobox?

Would anyone be opposed (probably) to just having the formation and final dissipation date in the infobox? I believe the infobox is needlessly long having to also cover the JTWC/JMA TD status for what lasted maybe a day, and was an afterthought compared to the impacts in the NIO. Just saying, it would help with spacing if it just said "Formed 25 November" and "Dissipated 30 November". But I'm sure I'll get opposition because "it was in a different basin", or, "the JMA didn't officially track it as a continuous storm so it needs to have a separate column". At that point, I'd rather just ignore all rules and have a nice concise infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would remove the second JTWC TD section, since the JTWC did track it as the same system. So keep the IMD for NIO and the JTWC for both basins, and the JMA for the WPAC part. Z E T A^C 21:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done: condensed and did what Zeta suggested. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Now that the infobox is even longer (due to its high damage total), what about removing the JTWC section altogether from the infobox? It doesn't add anything when we already have the official intensity estimates from IMD and JMA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the JTWC is pretty important for the SSHWS, since the track map also uses that scale. The (Costliest Indian Ocean cyclone on record; second-costliest when adjusted for inflation) can be made small or entirely removed (or condensed), imo HurricaneZeta^C 19:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Not in this case, as Senyar was only a tropical storm, the same color as cyclonic storm. Tropical storm status isn't a part of the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No, because JTWC is a U.S.-agency that we include in all basins where it issues advisories. The map is using the JTWC BT for the most part so it must be included. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But nothing would be missing from the article if we removed the JTWC from the infobox. Their pressure estimate isn't even mentioned in the met history, so all we have is an American agency's estimate for peak winds. And seeing as this is in between the Indian and Pacific Ocean (far from the US's nearest territory) I think we don't really need that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I just removed this along with the costliest NIO cyclones template, on the grounds of it being completely unsourced, using the wrong conversion formula with {{Inflation}}, and having Senyar there with a 2025 USD damage total amidst 2024 values is misleading. (Have started a section at Template talk:Costliest known North Indian cyclones#Completely unsourced for further comment on the template.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 23:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Expand lead?

Some people aren't happy about the need to have a forced clear, but Wikipedia policy states that there should be no text sandwiched between the infobox and the image on the left. That is why the clear needs to remain, unless the infobox were a lot shorter and the lead were a lot longer. So could y'all expand the lead a bit more? Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll try, but for the meantime I think we can just IAR and keep the clear. The whitespace is very unappealing on all other skins but Vector 2022. HurricaneZeta^C 03:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That's why I'm also arguing for a shorter infobox and a longer lead. Yea the whitespace isn't pretty, but text shouldn't be sandwiched. I tried proposing the option of including the map in the infobox, but that idea got shot down. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight:, please don't remove the clear, it's needed to make sure the text isn't sandwiched between the infobox and the met history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Galodo Padang Panjang - Nov 2025.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

---

2025 Sumatra floods and landslides doesn't add much content that couldn't be concisely conveyed in this article. I just removed entire paragraphs of unsourced LLM-generated spam, and there's probably more considering the insane amount of citation needed tags doing heavy lifting for entire paragraphs. Plus, including the salvageable information from there could help expand this article and its lead. HurricaneZeta^C 15:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Also going to add 2025 Southeast Asia floods and landslides to this merge proposal because it's mostly about the floods Senyar caused and thus duplicates the other articles. It also suffers from the same LLM spam as the other article. The other parts are unsourced and have information about Ditwah (not in Southeast Asia) and the typhoons in the Philippines which can be conveyed in those articles. HurricaneZeta^C 15:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support, it's an unnecessary content fork. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support merge of 2025 Sumatra floods and landslides to Cyclone Senyar, given that the meteorological cause of flooding in Sumatra was apparently entirely Senyar (including its precursor stage), so the flood article would essentially be a content fork covering only Senyar's effects in Sumatra. I'm not seeing enough information in the flood article at the moment that Senyar's article can't handle.

Also support merge of 2025 Southeast Asia floods and landslides into whatever articles work best, including Weather of 2025 (there's a bit of non-TC-related Malaysia flooding), maybe Tropical cyclones in 2025, and each individual TC article. Agree that it's mainly a hodgepodge of events linked only by the umbrella term "Southeast Asia". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Support, it is pretty much just a paraphrased version of this article with a small amount of content added. Sertymop (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Mangosunset13 (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Support copy and paste of Senyar. Jiiiiiiiii (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2025 (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.

@HurricaneZeta, are you still interested in carrying out the merge? You can find instructions at WP:M5, let me know if you want any help! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Is anybody ever going to do this merge? Mesocyclonic93^(t)_(c) 21:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why nobody ever got around to it, but I finished the merger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

29W 2017

In the article it says "It was the second tropical cyclone documented in the Strait of Malacca after Vamei in 2001, and the first to form at the area since the beginning of reliable records." Well I found 29W from 2017 which seemed to have formed in the Strait of Malacca judging by the track map but I'm not sure. Should we add it? Nibnab43637 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As the JTWC is not an official agency, I wouldn't add it, since the IMD never classified 29W. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It never went west of 100E, so the IMD never would have tracked it. Is there JMA best track data for it? Nibnab43637 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The JMA did not consider it a tropical depression in the Indian Ocean. They tracked it from October 30 to November 3, and again on the 6th, so 29W formed in the South China Sea, not the Strait of Malacca. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)