Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

List of New York hurricanes

Following this discussion, New York was made a dab page. As the state article is now located at New York State, what does everybody think about moving List of New York hurricanes to List of New York State hurricanes? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have any other New York articles been moved yet? I don't think there is any need to move it. We have the rest of the articles at the generic name (List of X hurricanes). We could redirect the latter to the former, if necessary. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the move was undone following a uproar regarding the vast amount of work it would take to move all of the other New York articles, so the point is moot. I agree that redirecting List of New York State hurricanes → List of New York hurricanes is a good idea. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're talking about it, is there any point redirecting List_of_Florida_State_hurricanes → List_of_Florida_hurricanes, etc etc? There are only 25 or so in Category:Lists of tropical cyclones by area. Plasticup ^T/C 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reasonable way to confuse Florida with a city, which there is with NY/NYC. The only problematic case is Georgia, and I think we've talked about that one before. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, if we had Georgia, it would be at List of Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes, right? After all, that is how the category is named. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the country Georgia has never been affected by a tropical cyclone, so it probably wouldn't be necessary to name it List of Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes as opposed to List of Georgia hurricanes. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but the category has the (US state). Should we move the category, or change the article title? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I say send Category:Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes to CFD and see what the wider community thinks about renaming it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It already was on CFD, that's why we discussed it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of that CFD, it doesn't seem a rename is practical. Just as well; it's not a big deal. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break about categories

While we're talking categories, let's discuss something else brought up in the CFD. Should we delete/merge the individual U.S. state categories and replace with a broader set of regions? We have several options in the Wikipedia article on the subject matter. One quick and easy option would be to use the regions as defined by the HPC (link)? We already have Category:New England hurricanes. The question would come down to what to name each region, since Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Gulf Coast, Midwest, and West aren't clear enough, but we could call it Category:Southeast United States hurricanes, Category:Mid-Atlantic United States hurricanes, etc. Another potential issue would be the itty-gritty of using - or – , and whether to do just West or Western. Any thoughts?

Likewise, there are tons of Mexican categories, which, looking back, are not needed (I was the one who created them without much discussion). Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see Category:Florida hurricanes being useful for a reader interested specifically in Florida, and the same for all other state-specific categories. Same goes for Mexican states. More general area categories would be useful for readers with less specific interests. Both methods have their benefits, so why not do both? Plasticup ^T/C 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I like your idea, but I still don't feel the need for a few states (Illinois, Colorado), particularly when those categories are only for storms that affected the state that have articles. Could we have the regional categories, which could contain the inland storms and remove some of the pointless categories, and also keep the categories for the states along the coastline? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1495 articles are assigned to this project, of which 197, or 13.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm

Finally I thought that this was going to last forever. Has anyone else noticed that there has been a active storm somewhere in the world since June 16? Deep Depression BOB 02 June 16-18

Typhoon Fengshen June 16-26

Hurricane Boris June 27-July 4

TS Cristina June 27-July 2

TS Douglas July 2-4

Hurricane Bertha July 3-20

Hurricane Elida July 12-19

Typhoon Kalmaegi July 13-20

Hurricane Fausto July 16-22

TS Cristobal July 19-23

Hurricane Dolly July 20-25

Hurricane Genevieve July 21-27

Typhoon Fung-wong July 24-28 --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Arlene87 is now Elena85 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm one thing Fung-wong was only downgraded to a depression by the JMA this afternoon - allthough it has been a mad rush for the last couple of weeks so it will be nice to have a little bit of a break to catch up with things Jason Rees (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Pacific typhoon season

We need to start catching up on articles for the storms..... I have just (with a-lot help from Jason Rees) completed Typhoon Fung-Wong (2008) and me and elena85 are starting Severe Tropical Storm Halong. Can we have some people starting others up? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I Dont think their are any others for this season to be done at the minuteJason Rees (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok.... shall we try 2008 Pacific Hurricane season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the only storm that deserves an article in the EPAC is Alma as the rest are Fish Spinners. Though depending on wat KIKA does to Johnston Atoll. KIKA maybe be worthy of an article however if we do an article for KIKA then it will be once it is in the WPAC and over the dateline. Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on the recent Pacific typhoon articles. I notice the timeline has been added, but there was no discussion for that. I'm not sure if I like it or not. Do we want that for every storm worldwide? The information in the timeline should definitely be in the storm history, after all. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a barebones storm history. We can always keep those in the timeline articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the article as all of the information is already covered in the Storm History. The Timeline format should already be covered in the Timeline of the 2007 Pacific typhoon season-type articles. If a single hurricane had an exceptional timeline then maybe you could make a case for a storm-specific timeline, but even that would have no place in the storm's main article. Plasticup ^T/C 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. Although I haven't been very active on Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones lately, so I'm trying to catch up.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Allthough i like them being in the article as pointed out above they contained only barebone sentances so i would rather see them in the main timeline articles Jason Rees (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone help with Tropical Storm Kammuri (2008)? It needs a little assitance in its impact section.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a cite error on 2008 Pacific Typhoon Season here. Could anyone help?--Leolisa1997 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold text in season timelines

Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season uses bold text for storm formations, upgrades to TS or Hurricane status, and landfalls. Is this standard? On the FLC it was criticized as "hideous" but, although it is not aesthetically perfect, it does draw the reader to the timelines most significant events. I don't want to start changing one article away from an established convention, so I was hoping that we could talk it over. Is the functionality of the bold portions worth the aesthetic sacrifice, or is there some other compromise? Plasticup ^T/C 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no real argument to support the overwhelming use of boldface text in this list. Per WP:MOS (to which featured content should comply), "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance." The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about doing something like this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That would contravene WP:MOS#COLOR I'm afraid, using just colours to signify certain attributes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

EPac and CPac

Since that the NHC doesn't have responsibility for the Central Pacific, and that it considered a different basin, Maybe we can move CPac stuff to 2000-8 Central Pacific hurricane season (Articles for 10 year periods) and leave the rest of the article at 2008 Eastern Pacific hurricane season. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Yay!!! Kika 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are part of the National Weather Service. One office is in Miami and one in Honolulu.Potapych (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The idea has been brought up before, but I personally don't see a need. Such a large percentage of EPAC storms move into the CPAC, more so than any other basin, for the most part. The SHEM does have a parallel with that of the Pacific basins, but there is a fairly well-defined gap between, say, SWIO and the Australia region. There isn't that gap with the CPAC, as the EPAC flows right into the basin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of hurricane Featured List Candidates

Juliancolton and I have two Featured List Candidates up for nomination and we could both do with a little feedback on them. The FLC pages are quiet these days and Julian's was recently de-listed (and re-listed) not because it was unworthy but simply because there were not enough reviewers to establish consensus. My nomination looks like it is heading the same way. We could do with a few more critical reviews to establish that consensus.

Juliancolton's nomination of Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

Plasticup's nomination of Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Plasticup ^T/C 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

TFAs

Anybody got any idea of what to make of this? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, whining. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Tropical cyclone intensity Scale

Whilst going through some of the Australian and southern Pacfic articles i have noticed that there doesnt seem to be a scale detailing all the Storm intensitys. so i have made one up. thoughts would be welcome before i roll it out to the various pages User:Jason_Rees/Sandbox4

Jason Rees (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time I heard is that the Bureau of Meteorology use Tropical Low (Global Tropical Cyclone Terminology) and don't use Tropical Depression or Tropical Disturbance unlike the US for the intensity scale. Bureau of Meteorology do use Tropical Depression and Tropical Disturbance but only for forcasting and outlooks but not the lows themselfs. User:Jason_Rees/Sandbox4 is incorrect to be used on Australian Tropical Cyclone articles. Bidgee (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep Bom do use Tropical Low However that scale also uses Depressions for RSMC Nadi so to avoid any confusion ive added a second Scale showing the Australian and the southern pacific Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Still incorrect in terms of the colours used and the wind figures, User:Bidgee/Sandbox. Bidgee (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes about the Colours but no about the wind figures as they were taken directly from here which describes the Category boundries Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes your figures are incorrect such as 280km which = 151 knots and not 153 knots. So basing it on that source above it should look like this. Bidgee (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok my Apollogies when i checked my first convertor against another one the one that i used first of all was wrong Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

200 km/h is equal to 108 knots like this <108,<86,<64,<48,<34. For gusts, I converted it to this <151,<122,<90,<68,<49. The colors use the same gale & storm force colors for the West Pacific. I had to choose from existing ones for the other three. You can find it all here [1]. I haven't found what Fiji's definition of a disturbance is, so that's why I haven't added it.Potapych (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting GA submission

• To whomever reviews this article, I'll be away from wikipedia between August 15 and 25. This departure was not known when I submitted the article for GA what seems like four score and seven years ago. If you do not think it meets GA criteria, please place it on hold until after August 25. Thank you for your consideration. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those nag banners

There are lots of those obnoxious banners on many articles, and so far none really attract editors to fix things on the pages. Some articles have had them for two years, while mostly bots have done the editing. Can we get rid of them, and put Todo lists in each article instead?Potapych (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix some of them instead? The banners are important, especially ones which refer to unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Articles_flagged_for_cleanup a little ways up this page. Plasticup ^T/C 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are they important? You can place a {{fact}} tag wherever references are needed, but banners are a deterrent to further improvement.Potapych (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the banners should make members of this project ashamed and do something about it. Simple. Instead of posting here, go fix! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Does anybody think that this talk page needs to be archived, possibly by a bot? The talk page seems so long, it does take some time to scroll, although now I use the menu. I mean, the first section dates back to the first of June. Shouldn't we archive it?--Leolisa1997 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Archiving now. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know a bot that could archive our page. The thing is, it probarly updates too fast for us.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actully its probablly eaiser for us to do it by hand Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some topics I think could use some re-discussion, at least just a little bit to get a decision. Here are two I found that should be brought back up.

• Dual disambiguation and cross-basin disambiguation - decision to delete/redirect dabs with only two storms (with one storm retired)
• Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) - decision to remove ACE from season articles and instead put season totals in season infobox

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Add Article Importance to that list - we have to upgrade that scale to reflect project-only importance instead of Wikipedia-wide importance, because WP:v0.7 will be bot-selected. Having importance values that are too low will cause many of our important articles to miss the selection cutoff of 1,300 points. (A previous run of the bot is available here, in case anyone is interested.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Hurricane Impact inflation adjustments

Can someone briefly explain how to use the inflation adjuster that is built into {{Infobox Hurricane Impact}}? Plasticup ^T/C 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Common tropical cyclone jargon

It comes up in almost every FAC we submit; our project uses a reasonable amount subject-specific language. To help readers navigate our articles we often wikilink particular pieces of jargon: Low, wind shear, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, etc. I am creating a table to help me keep track of the usual suspects. Feel free to contibute. Plasticup ^T/C 19:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of useful contributions. Thanks much. Plasticup ^T/C 12:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Expropriated to WP:WPTC/J, so we can use it when I whine about WP:WPTC/A#B6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Floater Imagery

Are the half-hourly images from these satellites stored somewhere for a long period of time? I would like to group all of the images of a hurricane into one (tremendously long) .gif so that I can watch the entire evolution of the storm, but I don't feel like downloading/cropping the images every 6 hours before they disappear from the GOES website. Plasticup ^T/C 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a page that contains images from about 1.5 days ago. -- RattleMan 07:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect, thanks. Plasticup ^T/C 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Standard height" in List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes??

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes contains an odd and confusing reference to "standard height" when measuring windspeeds. I think that this phrase belongs in the sentence following the one where it appears, but am not sure. Can somebody please take a look? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I corrected that (it did belong elsewhere) and also took the opportunity to convert the references to cite web. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Add Advisory Number to Current Storm Status Box

I think it would be a good idea to start adding the advisory number from the NHC to the Status Box (e.g. Advisory 20A). That would make it easier for editors to quickly identify if the data has been updated to latest advisory. It would also provide a way to link the official source for that information. --MarkRomero (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that sounds like a good idea. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposed - The Current Storm Information box is used in all basins and would most probbably break if we added advisory numbering as not every TCWC/RSMC adds an number to the advisory (ie JMA & FMS). Jason Rees (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical depression numbering: 1970-1987 in the Atlantic/1987 in the eastern Pacific

I went down to TPC to fish out TD numbers for pre-1988 seasons in the eastern Pacific and pre-1980 Atlanic hurricane seasons. The 1987 hurricane season report was never written up, for whatever reason, by Redwood City. Also, NHC does not have storm wallets of eastern Pacific tropical cyclones prior to 1988. This means if there is ever going to be inclusion of information about the TDs of the 1987 Pacific hurricane season (apparently TD1, TD3, TD4, and TD7) it is going to have to be researched from the hurricane newspaper archive online or through the microfilm map series contained at the Central NOAA library at Silver Spring, MD or the NHC surface analysis archive at FIU, in Sweetwater, FL. Somehow, CPHC will have to get their facts straight about Fernanda, which was TD10 that year, not TD9. The only reason I know of the 1987 Pacific tropical depressions is because I tracked them in real-time when I was 14 years old, and still have the tracking charts (who knew they would ever come in this handy nowadays.)

I did find surprising information for TDs in the early 1970s in the Atlantic basin. For whatever reason, NHC decided (likely with coordination with Redwood City) to group all TD numbers together from the eastern Pacific and Atlantic basins. This means, for example, that TD14 could have formed in the western Caribbean on July 14, and TD15 could have formed west of Mexico the following day. Luckily, these were in the NHC map series for 1970-1973 and easily transcribed. However, the map projection used at NHC changed from mercator to polar stereographic in 1974, and chopped off the eastern Pacific for good at that time. Luckily, TD numbers for the eastern Pacific do show up in the MWR articles for those years. For my rainfall project, I'm renumbering the 1970-1974 Atlantic TDs in the current style.

However, there is another complication. Some of the operational TDs were not in the file I received from TPC back in spring, while others that never were assigned operationally as TDs were included within that file. Also, in the mid to late 1980s, NHC used to renumber the TDs after the fact, when new systems were included in their non-development database post season. For example, TD13 of 1985 was designated TD14 due to the inclusion of another TD after the fact. Oy. It may take a while to completely resolve this issue, which will come up frequently as TPC scans their storm wallets from the late 1960s through the 1980s online, which use the original numbering system. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Insured damage estimates

I don't think that insured damage estimates from EQECAT, RMS, AIR, etc should be included in the "season damage total" nor in the "hurricane damage total". It might be worth mentioning them in the prose somewhere, but they are not figures based on actual damage reports. They are based on pre-existing computer models that simulate the effect of a Cat X, storm hitting whatever area. I used to work in a reinsurance company and would run these models all the time. They can often be wrong by 200% or more. We should wait until actual data comes out of the area. Plasticup ^T/C 15:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just following what someone else had done. If you look at the 1st archive on the Hurricane Gustav Talk Page, I just put the two links to the pages that stated the estimated insured damage, someone else took that info and put it into the main page. I thought that it was fine and followed through with the newest update on the total and put it up. But since you mention it I do agree that they shouldn't be included in the damage total. I think putting "Several billion" would be good enough for Gustav since we don't have an exact or FEMA estimated total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The accurate totals will come out in a couple months anyway. Plasticup ^T/C 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Forecast tracks

I came across this recent (but archived) discussion over on Commons. Certainly the image protections were inappropriate. However, I think the reasons for the protection are worthy of discussion. Firstly, I'd like to see where TC uploaders got told off for uploading junk files in 2005, and in any case that's 3 years ago now a decision then need not be binding now. I do have concerns with how WPTC is handling these images now. As far as I can tell the pros of the current system are (feel free to point out any I missed):

1. Less edits when the track is refreshed.
2. No clutter on Commons.
3. Why change it, it works?

However I think these reasons are not that important, leaving aside the obvious fact that change is not a big deal:

1. The tracks should always accompanied by text. The text gets refreshed with each update to the track, changing at most 3 characters in the image link (changing 19A to 20) is not a real hardship.
2. Clutter on Commons is not a bad thing per se (god knows, there is enough of it). If forecast tracks are uploaded into a specific category eg Category:08L 2008 forecast tracks there is no clutter anywhere that matters. 5 files vs 5 versions of the same file take up the same server space; one category entry in Category:Hurricane Gustav (2008) is probably better to one file in the category etc.

Also I can see additional benefits (of varying value):

• If a project (such as Wikinews or es.WP) wants a specific image, they can just go to the category and select the one they want as opposed to having to upload it for a second time.
• Faster loading of the image description page: MW generates thumbnails for all of the old versions, with 40 old versions this actually takes a noticeable amount of time.
• Different language WPs will react to an update in the track at different speeds. Say en reacts within 1 minute, but fr take 30 minutes. If the en user uploads the new track over the old one and then refreshes the en article, the en article shows the most current information but the fr article contains an image out of sync with its text for ~29 minutes. If the new track is uploaded to a new location, the fr page will show the correct track to accompany its text until a fr user refreshes both. Out-of-sync is more confusing than outdated.
• Old versions of articles (like this) will display the correct image rather than the last version.

Given all this, I think WPTC should upload to new locations each time... Thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is so much easier to use one file name and have the images update automatically across all wikipedias. With a storm like Gustav, that means one update to the commons image updates 27 maps on 27 wikis. You can't beat that convenience. Plasticup ^T/C 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See my first point: The tracks are accompanied by text. It is a bad thing for them to de-sync and a proper refresh can sort out the track too.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see that as a good thing, as the text is usually "latest track" and other wikis depend on enwiki for us to upload the current track for everyone else to use. I'd be more comfortable with appending "latest track" to the rotating image and having some sort of automated upload if we want to keep a copy of every advisory's image. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the worst of both worlds: we would have 2 copies of everything, and the one actually used would have the disadvantages detailed above. Its better to have both track and info out-of-date than have an article that contradicts itself (which is what the file desyncing from the text does). Sure the other WPs depend on en to stay up to date, but we should encourage them to refresh themselves properly not just think "en is updating the track, so we can leave it alone". That also completely ignores Wikinews, which may want a image at any time and would want the static image. Why should they have to upload a needless duplicate because en.wp wants to ignore Commons guidelines and upload a different version over the image they are using. Commons supports all projects pl.Wikinews is just as important to Commons as Hurricane Gustav, a non-rotating structure supports both more sensibly.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the Commons discussion: Unless there's a bot that handles that for us, I see no point in cutting off our nose to spite our faces. I'll just upload the track maps locally, then. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is heading towards POINT in my view, as it removes the benefit you assert for other projects (I disagree that that is a benefit, but I can see your side of that argument). If we look only at en, en does update track and text together. There is no harm whatsoever to en with uploads to different locations. I'll ask it succintly why to a single location?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Titoxd, sorry if you feel that the above goes too far (I've had a bad time IRL lately - not that thats an excuse). However, there is third way here: Image redirects!

[[Image:Testing.png|50px]] produces . That file is at Image:Test.png. This would mean the following could be done: the files are uploaded to seperate locations and the base image page is a redirect to that. On each update the user uploads to a new file and alters the redirect. When the storm is dissipated, the redirect can be speedied. How do you feel about that?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not as much a POINT as much as it is a maintenance issue. In the Gustav track map, a cursory look at the upload history points that 20+ different users uploaded that track map, and most of them are not the usual suspects that work on WPTC. Trying to institute a naming policy that would simply be ignored by users unfamiliar with it would create a considerable cleanup burden (there's no such thing as image renaming, unless something has changed recently), not to count having a considerable amount of duplicate/multi-version images. Overall, I see it as a bunch of work that would yield nothing of benefit to en.wikipedia, so my opinion stands: if Commons thinks that we are breaking policy, we can always simply bypass Commons. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a limited benefit to en: Old versions make sense. As for image renaming, sure we do not have that. However actually communicating to the users who update the tracks could get that sorted - you are one of those people after all. The other thing to note is I have something like 10,000 tracks sitting on my HD. While I'm uploading them in the background I'll have plenty of time to sort out a lot of this mess (even if its a complete waste of time, if you check my recent Commons contribs you'll see I'm doing a lot of stupid mindnumbing tasks lately).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you know uploading to en is probably more sensible if the updating-over-the-image model continues to be followed. If Wikinews wants an image, they won't run the risk of a dynamically updated version; and other Wikipedia's should expect static versions. If en.wp wants to use them in a manner that can disrupt other projects, best to have them locally uploaded.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) That's about the only benefit I can see, and even then it is a small one, as we usually keep a "latest forecast" link instead. However, I'm rather concerned that the "communicating" with new users will be seen as massive instruction creep by other users, so I really think that this is something that should be kept as simple as possible. Again, if we can figure out a way to automate either the retrieval or uploading of the tracks, we'd have half the battle won. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(yay for ECs!) A simple way to communicate would be to slap a big template on the image saying "do not upload over this instead upload to XXX", and then if they do pointing them at the Commons guideline about "don't upload new images over pre-existing files". Commons (unfortunately) has a lot of instruction creep already, a welcoming bot for a start! IMO, if new users (like Gustav attracted) see that the files are being uploaded to new locations they will do the same. The problem may actually be the regulars "we've always uploaded over the file, why should we change?". I agree about the bots, but I can't help there and I don't think its needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK a more detailed summary of what was actually going on with Gustav. Of the 27 Wikipedia's that currently have articles on the storm at the time of landfall (1430UTC) only one had the most up-to-date information - en.wp. As for the other 26:

• 8 (af, zh, es, fr, tr, pt, ta and nl) were using the track with information from a previous advisory.
• 5 (ar, no, pl, sv and vi) were using the track with no other "current info.
• 13 (bg, cs, fi, is, ru, uk, de, he, hi, ja, ko, ms and wuu) were not using the track.

Of the 14 Wikipedia's using the track, only 6 were using it in a manner that makes sense. Only 1 was doing it properly (en) as the other 5 do not make it clear as to when the forecast was from - a rather critical piece of information. Furthermore nl.wikipedia was using it in a manner that explicitly stated the track was from August 30. If the images were uploaded to separate locations all 13 would be using the file in a manner consistent to that article.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambigs....

I'll take this off Hurricane Ike's page:

Disam page for Ike

Seeing as Ike has been used under two name sakes... (A typhoon and hurricane) why does it say Tropical Storm Ike? It should read Tropical Cyclone Ike.... anyone agree? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But it never was used for a cyclone --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 12:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

but a hurricane and a typhoon are both tropical cyclones right? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Itfc+canes=me on this one. This might affect other disambiguation pages so perhaps we should discuss it on the project talk page? Plasticup ^T/C 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Ike would refer to a 65 kt storm in the Southwest Indian Ocean. Tropical Storm Ike could occur in any basin (pretty much). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No.... it wouldn't... as ALL tropical cyclones... whatever they are locally called they are ALL Tropical Cyclone's.... . Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the dab name is where the potential article goes. You can create a redirect under that name.Potapych (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation

So what do you think? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing what you said before, the term "tropical cyclone" could mean a storm with winds of 65 knots or more (example by the Meteo-France), or it could mean any cyclone that is tropical. A tropical storm is always a tropical cyclone that has winds of less than 64 knots. The argument for having the dab pages at Tropical Storm Ike is because "tropical storm" could be in any basin. Cyclone Jokwe could also be called Tropical Cyclone Jokwe, as it is in the example provided, but Tropical Storm Jokwe could be a name in any basin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it all depends if it gets retired or not. If it doesn't then it would obvously stay the same as it would come up again in 2014. If it does get retired which is likely at this point in which no Major Hurricane has ever struck the United States without getting retitred exept Allen back in 1980. Then it should take over the "Ike's" and have a discombig for the other "Ike's". The only reason that we may have to do it sooner is if it blows up in the gulf of mexico then the public has to track it back through the discombig page..-WxHalo(T/C)19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Isbell of '64? --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Idea, Create a Tropical Cyclone Ike page thats the discombig then have all 3 there and for now move Hurricane Ike (2008) to Hurricane Ike and leave Typhoon Ike where it is and have both of them link back to Tropical Cyclone Ike That way if they type in exactly "Hurricane Ike" or "Typhoon Ike" it will come right up. -WxHalo(T/C)19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.... (that is the point i have been trying to say) however we would have to do that to all Tropical Cyclone name articles Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Elena85, I solved that problem and it now has a link on Hurricane Isabel's Discombig page. I also cleaned up the Southern Hemisphere storms named Isobel and put them in a sepreate discombig page catagoried under Australian Tropical Cyclone Discombig's.-WxHalo(T/C)20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a Hurricane/Typhoon is a type of a Tropical Cyclone i think that if the name has been used in two or more basins but not in the NIO OR the SHEM then it should remain at Tropical Storm Blah blah. However it has been used anywhere in the SHEM or NIO then it should be put a Tropical Cyclone as it has been offically named as a Tropical Cyclone. (Ive just noticed that Ike is at Tropical Storm when it has been offically retired as a typhoon which would mean under current Policy Ike should be at Typhoon with Hurricane Pointing at it) Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, what is wrong with keeping the dab at Tropical Storm Ike? In every basin around the world, a tropical storm is the name for any cyclone that is tropical with winds less than 64 knots. In every basin around the world, there is not a uniform name for a cyclone that is tropical with winds greater than 63 knots. Since Ike's dab is a dab page that has had a name in more than one basin, then Tropical Storm Ike remains the best name. If Ike was only used in the WPAC, then its name would be Typhoon Ike (disambiguation). If Ike was only used in the Atlantic, and it had been previously before the current one, then its name would be Hurricane Ike (disambiguation). I don't see what the problem is. The dab page can't be Tropical Cyclone Ike, because that implies SW Indian Ocean. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. Use Tropical Storm Ike, like we would usually do. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change of Eye (cyclone)

I have proposed a name change for this article here Ctjf83Talk 17:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs - WPTC Template

Where should I report a template bug? Details of the bug I have in mind are at Template talk:WPTC convert --Danorton (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the en dash?

Someone's made a few changes to {{Infobox hurricane season}}. It seems to have caused en dashs to disappear in articles like 1986 Pacific hurricane season. It doesn't affect 1988 Pacific hurricane season for some reason.Potapych (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Tropical cyclone

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

B+ Class

Hi, Some Wiki-projects have B+ class for there articles.... and i was wondering why we don't have it to. I personally think that it should be used for articles on hold OR those nominated for GA class, or the articles that might be A class and have skipped GA.

Discuss: Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to know which WikiProjects use "B+". The assessment scale is Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, and FA, with nothing in between. Therefor any project that uses such a class is doing so inaccurately and even more inappropriately. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Julian, it's WikiProject Math, but they essentially don't use GA. It's not inappropriate, but it was pretty much rendered obsolete by the introduction of C-Class and the tightening of B-Class standards. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

When a class is considered obsolete, it's being used in appropriately, methinks... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's up to them to decide, not WPTC. WP:1.0 doesn't blink an eye over it. That said, there's no point in having it here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It was my knowledge that WP:1.0 discourages the use of classes other than the official, but oh well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

"Storm history" versus "Meteorological history"

The "Storm history" section was a common feature before I made it official by writing about it in the WPTC page. Since then numerous editors made it an entirely standard feature. I've noted for some time that "Meterological history of..." sub-articles conflict a bit with the naming though; nor does "Storm history of..." sound very good for an article name. And today I noticed that Hurricane Katrina had renamed its Storm history section as Meteorological history.

I don't believe there's any reason why Katrina or a few select other articles should be inconsistent with the rest, when the two terms are basically synonyms. My question, therefore, is which should it be? Off the top of my head I'd say for consistency with the sub-articles naming (Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina) we should make "Meteorological history" the standard section title rather than Storm history.

— jdorje (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see a strong argument either way, but I suppose we could make it work. I agree that consistency would with the Met. history articles is now now needed. Might be hard to change 700 articles, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote up a little script that will change all of the "Storm history" headings to "Meteorological history". I can run it on my bot if we decide to make the change. Should take no more than a couple hours. And as consensus building goes, I am in favor of "Meteorological history". "Storm history" is not a very descriptive heading as it could include any number of non-meteorological things. Plasticup ^T/C 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on "meteorological history". -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus then. Plasticup, set your bot loose, or I could do with AWB. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I don't get in trouble, I have made a formal bot request. For a simple job like this it should only take a couple hours, and then we'll be on our way. And the slight delay should give us time to hear what Hink and the other regulars have to say. Plasticup ^T/C 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NHC uses "Synoptic history". For our purposes, there might be considered a slight difference between "storm history" and "meteorological history". In the met. history articles, we also include weather statistics, such as rainfall produced, flooding, winds, storm surge, etc. We don't have that in our storm histories, which are limited to the history of the storm itself. So, does that mean there is a significant enough difference between calling it "storm history" and "meteorological history"? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Synoptic history of Hurricane Katrina? "1. pertaining to or constituting a synopsis; affording or taking a general view of the principal parts of a subject. " - not a synonym for the others. I too prefer Meteorological. Rainfall or flooding totals could fit easily under either category though we usually put them in the impact section. — jdorje (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't mean to rename the met. history articles. So I'm fine with renaming SH to MH. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My bot request was approved, so I can go ahead if we feel that a consensus has been established. Plasticup ^T/C 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasticbot has finished its run. 541 edits. Let me know if it missed any, because that might be indicative of systemic error which would require a little more followup. Plasticup ^T/C 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of the change, but since it's an after-the-fact thing (geez, guys, waiting more than just 8 hours wouldn't have killed anybody), please update WP:WPTC/S to reflect that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :-\. I updated WP:WPTC/S though! Plasticup ^T/C 06:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This really should have waited longer guys! "Synoptic history" is the most precise suggestion: It covers synoptic scale meteorology, the nature of the cyclone as a whole (as opposed to a synopsis), not the local effects such as rain and tornadoes. In fact, IMO "storm" is preferable to "meteorological", because "storm history" suggests the history of the storm whereas "meteorological" suggests all the associated events too, which are outside the scope of the section (but not the met history articles).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't "the history of the storm" also include its impacts? We want to specify that the section is only about the weather-side of the storm. Plasticup ^T/C 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of synoptic like that is too technical for a section heading. And what "meteorological" events don't belong in the Met history section? I know we put flooding and sometimes rainfall information in the impact section usually, though it could go in either IMO. — jdorje (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Or in both. The Meteorological History can contain rainfall amounts, height of the storm surge, that kind of thing, and the Impact can talk about the effects of x inches of rainfall and y feet of surge. Plasticup ^T/C 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory, "meteorological history" encapsulates things such as storm surge, rainfall, floods, tornadoes... None of these are included in the section, which only includes a synoptic-scale description of the cyclone. Therefore "synoptic history" is strictly superior to "meteorological history" as a description of the sections as they stand (which is why the NHC uses that term for the equivalent section in a TCR) and re-inventing the scope of the section to make the latter fit better than the former is a very bad idea: You lose the strong narrative thread describing the cyclone, getting sidetracked every time it had effects on land.

Technical headings are bad, but needlessly vague headings are worse. I'm wondering if "X history" is the best form of the title, the fact it is a history is implicit, and a different phrasing may be better. There is no reason to standardise between the section in the storm articles and the met. history article titles, so that should not be a concern in determining the "best" name.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Storm path or Storm track? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is more than just the track/path. We usually discuss causes, scale, and all sorts of things. In fact, I often add in things like storm surge and rainfall when they are exceptional, which would be closer to "meteorological" than "synoptic". Plasticup ^T/C 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it the storm surge, flooding, etc are things that could go into this section - after all it often does list local wind speeds or pressures which are also not synaptic-scale. But since surge and flooding often fit better in the impact section they usually go there instead. It's possible another name would be better though - do you have anything in mind? — jdorje (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Meteorological overview would sound good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Unnamed" storms

IMO the use of "unnamed" as a name like this ain't so good in general; basically I feel it's a cop-out since we already know the storm is unnamed by virtue of it not having a name given. Most articles use locational disambiguation like 2005 Azores subtropical storm, a few in the past have used RSMC nomenclature like Cyclone 05B (1999) and I don't see why any of these three cases should be different. Additionally, the first 2 storms below are surely ambiguous since in all the basins in the world there must have been a large number of unnamed tropical storms during those years; the third could be made ambiguous if re-analysis finds any other Atlantic/Pacific hurricanes in that year. I've thrown on some suggestions for identifiers based on position or (obnoxious) internal NHC nomenclature.

• Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006) : Tropical Storm AL02 (2006), 2006 Nova Scotia tropical storm, 2006 North Atlantic tropical storm
• Unnamed Tropical Storm (1987) : 1987 Gulf of Mexico tropical storm, 1987 Gulf Coast tropical storm
• Unnamed Hurricane (1975) : 1975 North Pacific hurricane

— jdorje (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. I suppose it is a bit of a cop-out, and I agree none of the unnamed articles should have "unnamed" in the title. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Though I dislike the idea of moving to the NHC designation, like Tropical Storm AL02 (2006). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we at all worried about ambiguity with other named storms? "Gulf of Mexico tropical storm" or "North Pacific hurricane" may uniquely identify the storm among all unnamed storms of that yeah, but I'm sure there's a lot of named storms that would fit the same description. Re-analysis could certainly make them ambiguous but that can be fixed later of course. — jdorje (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

<nitpick>05B was not the RSMC designation for that storm, that's the JTWC designaton which is different again.</nitpick> Incidentally, I'm going to standardise the unnamed storm track filenames on the JTWC-form as opposed to trying to copy article names, the numbers are much better than arbitrary names for that purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't realize that. As for the image track names, those were originally supposed to be more standardized in the order of the terms, including the year mandatory like "<name>_<year>_track.png". — jdorje (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and that is the case for named storms. However, there are thousands of unnamed storms and I'm referring to those files: Better "Atantic hurricane 1" than having to make up a name for a storm that had no effect in 1875.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm yeah, the standard's different for unnamed hurricanes. Wonder why I did that? Anyway, "Hurricane 1" isn't so good either. The problem is that with re-analysis new storms could be added or removed or their statuses upgraded or downgraded. I think it's better to go locationally or possibly by month or formation date (which could also change though) in the name. — jdorje (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Formation date may not be a unique identifier either. Plasticup ^T/C 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is guaranteed to be unique. But picking a name that may change is quite a problem IMO. — jdorje (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue has come up again. My opinion remains the same as it was a few months ago, the last time this was discussed...using location/month for unnamed tropical cyclones, rather than "Tropical Storm 12," for the reason jdorje mentioned. For me, this would apply to all hurricane seasons, not just the post-1949 seasons. I don't think using ATCF identifiers is a good idea, especially since I'm working with NHC informally on this problem for years prior to 1988 (pre-ATCF.) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely in the context of articles/sections. However in the context of the filenames for tracks just copying the number from the database is by far the easiest to implement. Its not perfect, but nothing is; this has the advantage of being a simple, unique identifier. If reanalysis changes something it would take 5 minutes to clean up with an appropriate mop. It is also the current storage system for the older storms. As the filename scheme is for ease of use of editors, and invisible to readers (readers of the article don't see the file name), I have no inclination to change that.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So after talking on IRC about the 1975 one, we came up with a name - 1975 Transcolorado hurricane. Before you say anything, please realize that name is based off the ship that reported the strongest winds in the storm. That name removes the "unnamed" aspect to it, and after all, naming storms by ships that experienced it is a common practice (1837 Racer's Storm). Also, look what the #1 Google hit is for "1975 Transcolorado hurricane". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I hope you don't mind, but I did it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leery of "Transcolorado" for the obvious reason. Incidentally the Google search is good evidence to not use that name - WP always ranks high, and its only one to connect "Transcolorado" and "hurricane" in the context of that system. A locational name is probably best (though I'm damned if I can think of one).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Central Pacific Hurricane of September 1975? Just an idea. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1975 Pacific hurricane, 1975 British Columbia hurricane, etc. I don't object to Transcolorado hurricane (it's more specific and makes more sense than any other) except that it's rather bad to give the idea of a hurricane crossing Colorado. — jdorje (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW it's not that inaccurate, given it's location ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics

• With searching there is a topic for featuring, the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season! It has about 30% of FT, the season article, Edouard, Gustav, and Kyle!

• The only problem is that Hanna is a C-class, but is currently a GA nominee.

• Any comments?

• I will work on Hanna for the next few days.

--Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Juliancolton is planning on nominating 2002 for FT once Hanna passes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we're talking about these things, I am working on a Hurricane Dean FT and a 2005 season FT: details Plasticup ^T/C 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'll chime in and confirm I am working on a 2006 Pacific hurricane season FT. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning to nominate it, I was just making sure anyone knew.

--Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I will nominate 2003 PHS if no one objects. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GT's

Maybe 1988 AHS once I try to get Gilbert to a GA. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season - a proposal

OK, so last night, Jdorje and I were talking about the list of storms in XX articles, and we came to the conclusion that they were largely pointless. We're quickly getting to the point of having articles for every named storm (2002-2008 in the Atlantic, and 2001 could easily reach that as well). We also have the new format for season articles, which is much more of an article and which resulted in the creation of the old-format through List of storms in XX season.

Since the season article is only supposed to cover each storm in fairly small detail, and we already have sub-articles for every named storm, we don't really need the list article. Right? Well, the problem comes with the tropical depressions. However, since we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel (which results in an FAC), why not go a step lower and give the depressions articles? They have as much history as the storms, after all, and we already have a featured depression article.

Basically, this would mean we get rid of the current format for the list sub-article. This could be seen as problematic, since we already have two FL's through this manner. We have two options. The first is getting rid of them entirely. The second, which Jdorje thought of, would be to make it a list article, by comparing each storm through different categories. I created such an example here. Any comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assessment of "list of storms" articles being useless. The format they employ is a extension of the "proper" (for lack of a better word) format used in the pre-2005 hurricane season pages (e.g. 2004 Pacific hurricane season, with the current format being an application of summary style to the season's storms section. In fact, I wouldn't consider articles such as 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as meeting WP:WIAFA §1.b without an explicit application of {{main}} and a link to the "List of storms" article. Whether we can add the tables you put in your sandbox to the current List of strorms articles is a different thing, but I strongly object to gutting the articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is no need for the proper article. The paragraph or two summary for each storm almost always appears in a sub-article, and the very short paragraph in the new-format season article mentions every storm. Let's think about who is reading it. For the public, I'd imagine someone interested on storms in the season would want to read the season article first, which, in the storms section, mentions every storm. Someone wanting more detail on a certain storm would then go to the sub-article. That gray-area for the list article (current format, such as 2005) is not needed, IMO. It doesn't provide anything that's not in the sub-articles. That is why it would be interesting having a comparison of each storm, in more of a list format (by the tables). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In reality, the current season format allocates more like two sentences to a storm, which I don't consider to be sufficient for an overview article, which is what season articles are supposed to have. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was considering a slightly longer section for each storm (paragraph each), sort of along the lines of the NHC monthly summaries. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the list format used by List of retired Atlantic hurricanes, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, and so on. If we make storm "list" articles this is how we should compare them IMO: by providing statistical information on each storm for comparison, as well as prose to cover the summary. The current List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season serves no purpose as a reference since all the information there is already covered in a sub-article, and as a list it doesn't do anything the main article doesn't do already. However there ARE some things missing from your list article format that might be nice to have: in particular the duration (formation/end) and picture. I wonder if another table could be added to include these pieces of information. — jdorje (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the List of Storms in the 2005 atlantic seasons article.... it allows me to quickly go through to what storm i want to look at, instead of having to hunt through that awful month by month thing. i say we keep the same. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too. It was comprehensive enough and a blend of the two formats. I know every storm has its own article, but creating lots of articles for non-notable storms isn't a very good idea.Potapych (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We're already beyond the point of not making those extra articles. We're at a point where we should be looking for the best system, and I don't think we have it yet. Perhaps the current "new" format of season articles isn't the best; I wouldn't mind seeing each storm section as a little longer, as I've done in my sandbox. What is it that you like most about the List article, and least about the main article? Is it the accessibility? If that is the issue, then we could revamp the table of content menu. I don't want to default to having the old style of season article somewhere in existence for a particular season. As Jdorje said, all of the info in the list article is present in the sub-articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "list of storms" and "200X season" articles are actually very different. The season article is about the season as a whole. The impact should include not just the impacts of the individual storms but the cumulative impact of the whole season. Preparations include not the prep for each storm but the prep for a season of storms. There are season predictions, post season analysis, and all of the meta-discussions that do not relate to individual storms. I think of the "list of storms" as an index for the individual storm articles, which is great too, but very different from the "season" article. Plasticup ^T/C 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The old season format is better if one wants information about a specific storm. Using months as section dividers makes writing about crossmonth storms difficult, especially if it is "equally important" in each month. The new format, if I remember correctly, was used due to the length and excessive TOC of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Just please don't suggest adopting the new format for EPac seasons. Most storm sections there are basically fleshed out versions of: "XXX formed on _____. It moved generally west/northwestward. It peaked with a pressure of _____ on _____. XXX then weakened and dissipated on _____." As for Atlantic seasons, the new format's reason to be is less applicable for slower seasons because there are fewer cyclones. This makes storm section length and TOC size less of an issue. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "new" format as used for 2005 was both to reduce the overall length of the article (which was unreadably long with the "old" system) and to make the ToC manageable. Having 27 different sections of 1-3 sentences each doesn't make for very pretty article IMO...though even for 2005 that would be possible with the current text (just change the acres to subheadings); it would be ugly but would still read just the same. And although I've always advocated consistency in article structure as a top priority, I also agree with hink that we should always be willing to reevaluate those standards if we can find a better way of doing things. One thing that makes it hard is that it's nice to have consistent formatting (as the "old" system provided) yet this conflicts with the need to have reasonable lengths among articles; whatever standards we do choose needs to work for both small and large seasons without either becoming unreadable. — jdorje (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence I think the old / EPac format is superior to the 2005AHS format for the vast majority of seasons. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes?

I just came across an interesting book, use the Google book copy and search for "hurricane". Its just too bizarre: Chapter 4.5 provides details of hurricanes as a trigger for earthquakes.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When I worked at a reinsurance company there was a big question as to whether hurricanes and earthquakes should be considered independent events. The theory is that increased pressure on the crust from the storm's surge might trigger earthquakes. One of the many examples that the underwriters cited at the time was an earthquake in Hawaii as Flossie approached. Plasticup ^T/C 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics

In working on the 2005 season (for FT: 24 down, 7 to go!) I keep coming back to this article: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. I don't know what to do with it. My first thought is to delete it; everything there is either in the season article or is original research. But I'm not sure. It would be great to build it up to a real article, although I have no idea what it was originally meant to be. Can those who were around at the time of its inception shed some light on what was originally intended? Plasticup ^T/C 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it was meant to be a page to contain records set by 2005 storms. This ties into my proposal above, as these sorts of stats are interesting, and could be better organized. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with some references, rewriting, and reorganizing, that might make a decent article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? Plasticup ^T/C 03:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New template

I think we need a new template. It would be just like the HM templates but we will call it the Hurricane see also.--Yellow Evan (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No need. We're already violating MOS with {{hurricane main}}, and we don't need more bold mess all over the place. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that he means a template to add the usual "See also" links. Plasticup ^T/C 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We would use it fore Timlines and doing this makes it save time and look nice.--[[User talk:Yellow Evan|Leave Message]] or[[User:Yellow Evan| Yellow Evan home (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing what? We still have no idea what you are talking about. Plasticup ^T/C 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The hurricaen see also template.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Also: Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season

It would be somthing like this expet it would be a really template.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, why? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the {{See also}} template:

See also: Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season

Plasticup ^T/C 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

it is not bold and i can easily make a new template i can to it right now.I need to let Hurricanehink know.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be bold? Isn't that a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style? What is wrong with the current template? Plasticup ^T/C 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, most bolding outside of the lead is an MoS breach. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why do we even use {{hurricane main}} anymore? Can't we just use {{main}}? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the bolding is an issue, remove it from {{hurricane main}}. I try to avoid all the widely used ones because they are vulnerable to vandalism and changes on others' whims. Have you noticed those stupid nag tags changing a lot and overriding the format of some WTCP pages? The other {{main}} is far more complex and that will probably creep up some more. The simple custom one is better.Potapych (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What nag tags? And also, {{main}} has been permanently full-protected since December 2005, so if vandalism gets into it, we have bigger problems than formatting... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Asian Names

I know that this sort of doesn't have to do with this article, but has anyone noticed that Damrey of '00 was called Asiang by PAGASA? The reason is that the first Asian name was called Asiang. Asiang was used for the last time this year. --Rose09 | Talk | 2011 edits' 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyle

theres a tropical storm called kyle on the move north near america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.242.201 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Class warfare regarding recent tropical cyclones

Users within the project have been trying to use information expected to be released in the future to assess articles which are no longer current. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it doesn't say anywhere within the wikipedia assessment scheme that ratings should be based on information expected to be released in the future. If this were true, very few science articles within wikipedia would be beyond start class, because all the relevant information on scientific topics (such as tropical cyclones) is not currently known. While I've reluctantly accepted that the powers that be within this project reject the idea of a GA storm-specific article until storm reports from NHC are issued, the same should not be true of rating articles C or B class, if all currently available information is within an article. Feel free to discuss your feelings on this topic, because I think some of our members are going too far, even if it has been done with the best intentions of the project in mind. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason why a pre-TCR cyclone cannot be a C or B-class article, if it otherwise meets the criteria, especially C. This would especially be true of an Erick or Melissa type. Basically, all Wikipedia article are just the most recent draft; it's just some drafts are better than others. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with an expectation that the article will undergo significant changes in the near future that makes people hesitant to give ratings that may have to be retracted soon after. Also in a way start-class is a tag that an article needs further attention even though it may appear to be well written already. Of course any article may need revision over time, but for storms without a TCR we know that work will be needed within a fixed, fairly short timeframe. That said, I have no personal attachment to the Start-class tag for this use; we could even come up with a separate tag in the {{hurricane}} template for storms that need to be updated pending TCR. — jdorje (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jdorje, I think that's a great compromise. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the way I see it is like that: If we know for sure that significant changes will be necessary in an article in the near future (such as publishing the TCR for a landfalling storm), then it's kind of pointless to make a thorough review of the article's quality (A-Class or above) until those changes are made. GA is possible on articles that shouldn't vary much (e.g. fishspinners), I'd say, and I don't see why an article can't be B-Class as long as it meets the criteria. And yeah, adding a |tcr-pending=yes parameter in {{hurricane}} would be a good solution, I think. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Would the TCR-pending tag signify that the TCR has not been released, or would it signify that the TCR has not yet been incorporated into the article? Plasticup ^T/C 05:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated. If the TCR isn't released, well, it's hard to weave it into an article, so you could argue it isn't incorporated as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a tag and a comment: like "pending=Waiting for tcr", "pending=TCR released, needs incorporating", or just "pending=TCR". I suppose there could be separate categories for "pending" work that only need internal editing, versus those that we have to wait for the external sources to become available, but that might be too complicated. — jdorje (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the sort of stuff for which |comments=yes was made for... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Weaker storms tend to have most relevant information already included as well. Significant hurricanes/tropical cyclones appear to have more of a lag time between the time they strike and the time when the impacts are generally known. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of X hurricanes → List of X tropical cyclones?

Following an FLC of List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979), most non-WPTC users tend to agree that the articles should be moved to List of X tropical cyclones, as List of X hurricanes is incorrect for all but the storms that were actually hurricanes. I figured Id bring it up here before going ahead and doing it. Thoughts? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why it was ever named "list of x hurricanes" in the first place. Maybe hink or someone can clarify. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care much, either way. It would mean we'd have to move every single list (and everything else with hurricane as the last word, including the problematic Atlantic hurricane being moved to North Atlantic tropical cyclone). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we expand the scope of the article to allow for things that didn't happen? There were no Cyclones or Typhoons in Maryland, so what's the problem? There were also no nuclear explosions—should we mention that too? Plasticup ^T/C 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that hurricanes is too limited, as some people interpret that as 64+ kt winds. It's been a very long debate, over several different articles, and several different editors have voiced their disapproval of "hurricane" referring to all "tropical cyclones". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's a matter of strength, not basin. I and my bottle of Sandeman ruby porto would like to offer our apologies. Plasticup ^T/C 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a terrible idea but it's a slippery slope toward renaming hundreds of articles. The original use of "hurricane" as a pure synonym for tc comes from the Atlantic hurricane season articles; similarly we have Pacific typhoon season articles, so when I organized the category structure I made them consistent as with Category:Atlantic hurricane seasons and Category:Atlantic hurricanes and Category:Category 5 hurricanes (which was since been renamed, appropriately). The problem is if you don't allow hurricane to be a synonym for "tropical cyclone" within the appropriate basin, then you're put in the position of wanting to rename all the season articles in every basin - which is flat wrong since the NHC, among others, does include TSs, depressions, and even subtropical storms in the "hurricane" season. — jdorje (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and, come to think of it, we should be a bit wary calling them "tropical cyclones", since that is the name for a 64+ kt cyclone in the Indian Ocean. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's the generic term for any tropical storm, by definition. Just because the Indian ocean uses it so restrictively doesn't mean we should. After all, that would be a bit POV since it is used on a regional basis by that definition, wouldn't it? Thegreatdr (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, but hurricane can also be used as the generic term, within certain context. What we need is to decide what that context is. — jdorje (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone is the globally accepted term, per the glossary of meteorology. You look up hurricane, and you find the hurricane definition with no generic second definition. The hurricane term is only used across half the globe (western hemisphere) anyhow. Thegreatdr (talk)

Yeah. But then how come the "Atlantic hurricane season" includes tropical storms, while "Maryland hurricanes" wouldn't? I don't think you're proposing renaming as "Atlantic tropical cyclone season"...so what's the distinction between the two? — jdorje (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily a valid argument. List of 2008 tropical cyclones would be following a Wikipedia standard List of YY XX, completely descriptive of what the article contains. The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season is an entity recognized by the NHC, which happens to feature storms which don't reach hurricane strength. On the NHC site, a page listing all 1894 NA tropical cyclones would be titled "1894 Atlantic hurricane season". No WP:OR there. However, when we as wikipedians get together a list of, for instance, tropical cyclones which affected the state of Delaware, we should avoid ambiguity and title it List of Delaware tropical cyclones. Naming it List of Delaware hurricanes, and just assuming that "hurricane" is an ok term for all tropical cyclones, is clear WP:OR.

Furthermore, I'm going to call in the "It just doesn't make sense any other way" defense.-RunningOnBrains 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC's, ACR, stuff

We've been getting some... unpleasantness regarding our FAC's lately. We've been flooding it for a while, but more importantly with not-so-notable storms. There's also been an issue that the articles aren't exactly ready; several have had accessibility concerns. At the same time, we have an A-class review (ACR) system that isn't really working. Why not solve both problems at the same time?

On IRC, Titoxd and I were talking about this, and we came up with a proposal. As a project, we would not send any FAC's until an article passed the ACR (and an ACR does not pass until three project members support). That would, of course, require the support of the project, and hence why I am bringing this here. I'll start by vowing not to send any articles to FAC unless they passed the ACR (provided, of course, this gets off the ground). I believe Tito wants to comment as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially the problem is that the articles being sent to FAC are not even fully checked for style conventions (e.g. WP:ACCESS), and I've run into some rather wrong stuff on FAC's (such as 2002 Atlantic hurricane season's) that could easily be avoided if we look at the articles here. However, we essentially have used FAC as talk pages (not even PR nowadays!) for a while, and that's starting to piss people off. On the other hand, WP:WPTC/A is not active unless I prod people there, so this should kill two birds with one stone. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to submit all of my article to Peer Review, but after a 2 week wait I would be lucky to get 3-4 mediocre suggestions or typo corrections. If ACR becomes is active I think that it would be an invaluable addition to the project. As I see it, other editors have two problems with our approach to FAC. Firstly, they don't like that we are submitting so many articles. Secondly, they don't like that some of our articles aren't ready for FAC. An active A-class review process would solve the second problem, and if all of our articles are already perfect when they reach FAC, I think the first problem would be reduced as well. I support this 100%. Plasticup ^T/C 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good plans. We might want an internal pre-FAC reviewing process, though as you guys say getting responses on that is hard. Perhaps the A-class review process would do the same thing. A good task for old-timers like me who have no time for serious research! — jdorje (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Future FACs: If it's hurricane season, defer making an article a featured-article-candidate if its name is on this year's list - it may cause reader confusion. Spend the season focusing on other articles then come back to it in January. Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002) is one such article, readers who have the remarkable-for-hitting-Canada Hurricane Kyle (2008) on their minds will do a double-take on the date. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories for disambig hurricane name pages

Should the storm-name disambiguation pages in Category:Atlantic hurricane disambiguation each be in the categories for the appropriate seasons as well? For example, should Tropical Storm Abby be in Category:1960 Atlantic hurricane season, Category:1964 Atlantic hurricane season, Category:1968 Atlantic hurricane season, Category:1979 Pacific typhoon season, Category:1983 Pacific typhoon season, and Category:1986 Pacific typhoon season.

I've noticed some of these storm-name disambig pages list all relevant seasons, some do not. Is there a consensus? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that there should only be one article for the storm in any season category, so a reader looking at that category won't be sent to a dab article if there's a real article for the storm. There is, indeed, a lot of inconsistency here. — jdorje (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare for instance Category:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season to Category:2007_Atlantic_hurricane_season. — jdorje (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that someone will say "this is the way it's been for years, the exceptions need to be cleaned up," or "there has been no consensus, so let's discuss this." Once a historical consensus is identified and re-affirmed, or a new consensus is reached, a bot or a team effort can do the legwork of making things consistent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we've had no full consensus before. There might have been periodic discussion with partial consensus. — jdorje (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question, one I hadn't thought about before since I haven't created any of disambiguation pages. Common sense dictates that they should if they were full-blown articles. However, disambig pages aren't articles per se. I have no strong feelings on this issue. Since they are not really articles, it might be better to leave them out of the season categories. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is either (1) the DAB articles have all the season categories or (2) the DAB articles have all the season categories EXCEPT for the seasons where there's already an article for that storm. — jdorje (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the second one. If a dab doesn't have any articles, then it should be linked to every season category; conversely, if a dab has articles for every storm, then no seasons should be linked. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricanehink on this.--Rose09 ^{Rashmi Next} 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The second one seems reasonable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

EPac article creation guidelines

It was bound to happen; heads rolled with the nomination. To prevent future forced withdrawals, I have taken the liberty of creating several guidelines. These are intended to be suggestions for identifying potential articles, not concrete and unbreakable rules or policy.

Each suggestion is of the form of a bulleted guideline, with an indented comment or justification or reason for it. These guidelines generally apply to recent Pacific hurricanes, and to future seasons.

Pacific hurricanes are generally article deserving if they meet one of the following criteria:

• It is a named storm and makes landfall
  • Since 2005, this has basically been de facto policy
• It is a named storm that doesn't make landfall, but has significant impacts on inhabited land (basically Mexico and the US)
  • This covers things such as impact due to heavy rain or strong waves, and Hawaii landfalls are rare
• It is retired due to impact
  • The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one
  • Maintaining Wikipedia:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes requires these storms to have good or featured articles.
• It crosses into the Atlantic or vice versa as a with its circulation, not as remnants
  • If we are going to have an article on every Atlantic storm, this basically follows from that
  • The exclusion of remnants is intended to make it clear that this suggestion does not mean it's necessary to have an article on, say, 2001's Manuel
  • If it is a depression on both sides is a bit of an iffy area

Pacific hurricanes may be notable if they meet the following criteria. The more criteria they meet, the more article-worthy they are likely to be:

• It reaches Category 5 intensity
  • Maintaining Wikipedia:Featured topics/Category 5 Pacific hurricanes requires this to have a good or featured article, but losing that topic is not the end of the world
• It (nearly) sets some sort of record
  • Examples: intensity (in a month or all time), duration, distance, etc
• It does something unusual
  • Examples: forms out of season, travels from the CPac to EPac, goes from EPac to WPac, is the northernmost/southernmost/easternmost/westernmost? formation/example of its type, etc.

Pacific hurricanes that do not meet the above criteria probably aren't article-worthy. However, if Wikipedia is better for having an article on such a storm, go ahead!

What do you think? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with these guidelines i would even be so bold as too say we should roll these guidelines out for the whole of the Pacific Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

if Wikipedia is better for having an article on such a storm, go ahead! - this is the unwritten universal criteria for article creation. It is the basis for WP:IAR and most of the policies and guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That last one probably is the most important one. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If a good article can be written on a depression that lasted six hours in the middle of the Pacific with no impacts on land, then it should be written, in my view. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that if the circulation of the storm survived the EPac->Atl crossing, since it would retain the same name, it should get an article automatically (following the "All Atlantic storms have articles" rule). Also, I'd bump the intensity threshold for article creation to Cat 4, but maybe that is just me. Another thing I would add is if we have a very long season article, we may have to create storm articles for it to satisfy summary style. And of course, I'll say it again: if it's a well-developed, high quality article, IAR seems like the way to go. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is rather different. If you think of tiny useless storms as a part of the season, then start with top-down writing about the season you may end up having to have sub-articles for all the storms. Each storm that has a TCR probably meets objective notability criteria, but that doesn't mean wikipedia is improved by having a massive number of random storm articles. What does improve the encyclopedia is having good seasonal coverage, and if this means splitting off articles from the season then go ahead. But usually when that happens it should result in having an article for every storm in that season. It's a lot of work and shouldn't be entered into lightly. — jdorje (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Statistics

I'm about to do another update (the one for September), so please don't edit the article in the short term. However, there is a discussion on IRC right now about how to improve the stats. I'm listing them here so they aren't list.

• Wikiwork by GA (how many points till all articles are at GA)
• Wikiwork by C (how many points till all articles are at C)
• Having weighed Wikiwork, with regards to importance and quality
• Splitting the SHEM stats by basin

Feel free to add or comment! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps splitting WW by importance, both raw, and normalized somehow (by dividing the number of articles at X importance by the percentage of total articles that are at that same importance?) This would give us an idea about are progress along improving articles of X importance. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic navboxes

WP:NAV would be background reading. We have a few topics (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Dean, plus all seasons are somewhat topical) and most of them have or should have navboxes. Recent discussion on the Dean FT page lead to the creation of a navbox there, but it occurred to me that the nav links could be stuck in the infobox (as is done with seasons, linking to adjacent years) like this. I'm not entirely sold on the idea though (the infobox is pretty huge already). Thoughts? — jdorje (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it because it puts all the links together without adding a whole separate infobox. In fact, I would like to see the series feature built into {{Infobox Hurricane}} as an optional parameter. Plasticup ^T/C 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; if done it should be built into the infobox template. It might need two or more parameters to do it right though. — jdorje (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you do that? I'm not sure that it is within my capabilities. Plasticup ^T/C 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how it should look. I made User:Jdorje/Sandbox2 as a template to test out changes to the infobox, and User:Jdorje/Sandbox3 shows it in use. How does it look? Is it bad that the dean link is bold? — jdorje (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks good overall, but it's starting to get too long. Is there a way to list the articles in rows, rather than in bullet-point format? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is long, but I don't think that it is too long. I think this looks great, and if jdorje makes these changes to the current infobox I think it would be a great improvement to the Dean series. Plasticup ^T/C 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Added. Apparently there are three (at least) different infobox templates so I had to add it to them all. {{Hurricane Dean Related}} now has the text for the related-links that can be edited. Note that the wikinews dean category is empty and all the articles there are locked so we need an admin there to fix it. — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Has this been copied to {{Infobox hurricane season}} and {{Infobox Hurricane Season}}? If so, this should make {{hurricane season related}} obsolete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an extra pixel on the left side of the image. Also, why does it include external links?Potapych (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FA/FL

Why are all of this project's Featured Lists showing up as Featured Articles? They are all included under Category:FA-Class Tropical cyclone articles while Category:FL-Class Tropical cyclone articles is empty. There are at least 26 Featured Lists that are showing up as Featured Articles. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good question. They should probably be moved. {{Hurricane}} was treating FA and FL as the same thing. I have changed it to treat them differently. You can undo it with a revert if you don't like it. In order for the list to be populated though, the server cache has to be purged. WP:PURGE Plasticup ^T/C 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WPTC agreed to lump FLs in the FA category. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I have undone my edit to the template. Plasticup ^T/C 15:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We could do both, I suppose. Have one category for FA, one for FL, and one for all featured content. Plasticup ^T/C 15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The FA/FL thing is because the {{hurricane}} template precedes the introduction of {{List-Class}} and {{FL-Class}}. At that time, {{FA-Class}} was used as a marker of featured quality. We haven't really decided whether using that class is a good idea or not, although we have decided that we're not using {{List-Class}}. So, as a stopgap, I hard-coded FL to be equivalent to FA, at least until we figure out a reason why we should change it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that list would be a class, like saying one article is B-class while another is list-class. Surely list/article/topic would be a type, independent from the F/A/B/C/S classes that denote quality. — jdorje (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said a while ago, but WP:1.0/S now considers {{List-Class}} as one of the standard classes. Go figure... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We still don't have that much featured content (we just reached 100 not that long ago). IMO, by the time we reach 200 (which is how many pages can be listed on a page, before creating an additional page), the pages should be split, but I don't see the need for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake hurricanes

I ignored it for a long time because it was only a minor project undertaken by one person, but now that it is starting to grow we need to nip this in the bud. Wikipedia is not your private webspace provider. This is an encyclopedia. Creating fake articles on fake events is not improving the encyclopedia. It should be stopped before it gets out of hand. If you want to write about fake extraterrestrial cyclones that's great and I encourage your creativity, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Plasticup ^T/C 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was going to bring it (like by bringing it up on MFD), but I didn't want to be the bad guy by being the only one in support of it. There is an inactive hurricane Wikia, which has the same format as Wikipedia. I don't know if that's place for it, but sandboxes there are at least somewhere different than here. At the very least, it should not be on here, and I'll support any MFD of such articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I will start to move soon! (By the end of the month)

--Rose09 ^{Rashmi Next} 11:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea this existed until I check out the user talk page. What was the point of this set of articles, out of curiosity? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. — jdorje (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no point, but it was something to do. When I create it for other things, I do I to practice (I'm Not Joking) editing. I will blank all my pages that do this Ok?

--Rose09 ^{Rashmi Next} 18:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have checked my contribs, you know about my cyclone season. Can I keep that?

--Rose09 ^{Rashmi Next} 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get the point. Why not just practice on actual articles? Also, if you want a userpage deleted, tag it with {{db-u1}}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the pages deleted, I will use them eventually and could someone tell Yellow Evan not to create any new ones.

(ec)Is there any point to that article? I hate to say it, but Wikipedia is not for fun. A year or two ago, we deleted all of the fun polls and speculation from the season talk pages. If there were any articles that were made, and you were the only author, you can put {{Db-g7}} on the top of the page, and it will get deleted. As I said before, there is a Hurricane Wikia (located here), which has pretty much the same format as Wikipedia. Seeing how inactive it is, I don't think anyone would mind if it was used for that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be OK if it is in a subpage. This is making me cry.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 22:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am VERY said . All the fake pages I like i need to talk to them.

My point is that this is an encyclopedia. I realize that you are just having fun, but Wikipedia is not your private webspace provider. You should not be creating fake content on here. These fake hurricanes do not belong on the encyclopedia. User pages (and sub-pages of userpages) may only be used to for information relevant to building the encyclopedia. Your "articles" have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. I suggest taking them to http://hurricanes.wikia.com. Plasticup ^T/C 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Active discussions in need of some agreement

I'll take a page from the FAC talk page, and ask people comment, for one last time, on the following subjects. Some more topics should be discussed, but I (biasedly) think we should focus on these. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

60's

Just to let anyone know, I will do articles for 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 PHS --Rose09 ^{Rashmi Next} 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to include sufficient sources. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If 1966 is any indication, those articles will be in better shape than most of the pre-1980 Atlantic season articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Remaning

Shouldn't 1959 Mexico hurricane be at 1959 Mexican hurricane? --Kirk76 ^{1966 Pacific Hurricane Season} 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Its name is probably fine. As for remanning your situation, it depends what job you're looking to accomplish. hehehehe. Lord Schleppy (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It hit mexico; storms are named after the place they impacted. — jdorje (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Most notable EPAC storm

Wiki Project, What do you think is the most notable EPAC storm in history. Back in a second.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) I am saying this because I wiil give it Met. History and Impact and all that stuff.Leave Message orYellow Evan home22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view its Hurricane Ioke. Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats One for Ioke.Leave Message orYellow Evan home

Yellow Evan, please focus on learning how to write properly and reading up on Wikipedia's content policies before working on articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dora keeps getting better and better. Leave Message orYellow Evan home

No, it's not. In that post you just wrote, four of six words were misspelled. As I said, before writing more articles, learn how to write grammatically correct. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This brings up a good question. Has wikipedia developed a spell checker? It would seriously help people who have problems with spelling. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A spell checker has been proposed numerous times at the Village Pump, and, unfortunately, has not gotten off the ground. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make another mess. Plasticup ^T/C 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mess. Do you call a article that meet 5 out of the 6 GA criteria a mess. In fact doing one for Ioke will be so easy. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Dora (2005) is a mess. I performed the GA review. Trust me, I know how bad it is. The fact that you re-nominated it without considering most of the suggested improvements is simply ridiculous. And the fact that you keep reviewing your own articles is even more bothersome. Plasticup ^T/C 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see it meeting every critera expect Well written, that would not be mess. Think about it. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did think about it. I then left you a detailed list of improvements that need to be made before another GA Nomination. You can find it on the article's talk page. It is in the section called "GA Review". Plasticup ^T/C 03:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup... I would nominate that for AFD.... ITS TOO AWFUL ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also.. Julian.... doesn't Yellow Evan deserve a warning for his style of writing.... ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 17:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New season article format

Is the new format good? Bad? Do we need the list sub-article, particular if the main article was organized like this? In that one, I gave every storm and depression one entire paragraph, largely devoted to the SH, and I will eventually add an impact section for the major areas. One possible solution would be replacing the list article with a statistics-like article. The list sub-article debate is important, as an answer is needed for a featured topic candidate of ours. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to be conistant !!!! The problem with doing to the Atalntic standards is that i doubt that we could get the SHEM articles as its hard to get some decent sorces down under for damage reports (ie FUNA 08) and the fact that one of our TCWCs downunder doesnt have an internet site yet doesnt helpJason Rees (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to deal with the new season article format on a case-by-case basis. Within reason, pretty much every article would be able to support the new format. The older seasons, as well as the seasons with only a handful of storms, would be ridiculously short. As for the lists of storms, I've grown to recognize how redundant they are to both the main article, and the individual storm articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be consistent? I don't have a problem with older/more obscure seasons using a simpler format. I think that the season articles should use the "new" prose-like month-by-month format. This makes it into a complete and coherent article about the season. The "List of storms" still provides the storm-by-storm list if people prefer that, but I don't think that main season article should be a list. Plasticup ^T/C 15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is three issues. First, we can not update with the new format. Second, It is giong to be harder it find thingsis over. Lastly, how are we going to fit in both a image and infobox. i am ok diong this for the recent seasons but we must wait untill the new year like what happened in 2005.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I was refering to basins not years 2) we need to be consistant as otherwise an author might take an article like 2007-08 SPac to FAC and not get it listed because its not in the 2005 AHS format Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)