Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone current/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Question
Is this template compatible with other basins, or is this just for the Atlantic/EPAC? It's a pretty snazzy template, and I'd like to use it on the 2006 Pacific typhoon season article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- It should, you just need to update the name of the fields like done for {{HurricaneActive}}. If it isn't, poke me and I'll try to fix it. Titoxd(?!?) 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Images
The small infobox which the top of this one is based on has the storm pic / track map pair. However with the active storms the track map is not particularly useful. Perhaps we should go for the picture / forecast track combo? That would make more sense IMO, maybe change the fields appropriately to reflect that? Its not like this template is heavily used...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it currently says track. That may mean either the track map or the forecast track (ideally, it would be both, as we could modify Jdorje's program to use NHC advisory data...) so it can go both ways. Also, when the storm passes, it makes it easier to change from one infobox to another, as no fields have to be changed (except the dissipated/formed fields, which have to be added). Titoxd(?!?) 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The forecast track can be made through the track program, just formatting the predicted data up as in Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)/track will do the job fine, though it would be inferior, it doesn't show the error in the same way the NHC track does, the warnings or even the storms current location! To implement all of those things would require major recoding (especially the first which is the most important IMO). I'm thinking more about when the infobox is used in storm articles, like Tropical Storm Beryl (2006). There its more clear cut IMO, have a storm pic and the forecast in the active box and the track map at the start of the history. Actually, I suppose a <noinclude>-wrapped Usage instructions might be the best way to do it. The forecast track is probably best in storm articles and the track map better in the seasonal.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense, and that's how it is being used right now most of the time (and what I thought of when I coded the template originally). I wonder where we could get the data for the NHC forecast errors? Adding the warnings isn't as difficult, if you preset the warning points from here and then find a way to make the program follow the coast with a fairly-thick line... the current storm location might be shown by a larger plot point, perhaps. I don't know, these are all fairly major features... Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The large point would certainly work, I might have a go at implementing it as it might be useful for active storms. Both the addition of warnings and the error region would be fairly hefty things to do (and beyond my ability in C for sure). Oh and another reason to oppose trying to implement that, I don't like the idea of another color debate, we would need to pick 5 more wouldn't we?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense, and that's how it is being used right now most of the time (and what I thought of when I coded the template originally). I wonder where we could get the data for the NHC forecast errors? Adding the warnings isn't as difficult, if you preset the warning points from here and then find a way to make the program follow the coast with a fairly-thick line... the current storm location might be shown by a larger plot point, perhaps. I don't know, these are all fairly major features... Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The forecast track can be made through the track program, just formatting the predicted data up as in Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)/track will do the job fine, though it would be inferior, it doesn't show the error in the same way the NHC track does, the warnings or even the storms current location! To implement all of those things would require major recoding (especially the first which is the most important IMO). I'm thinking more about when the infobox is used in storm articles, like Tropical Storm Beryl (2006). There its more clear cut IMO, have a storm pic and the forecast in the active box and the track map at the start of the history. Actually, I suppose a <noinclude>-wrapped Usage instructions might be the best way to do it. The forecast track is probably best in storm articles and the track map better in the seasonal.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought errors were based on the 1-2-3 rule. For warning lines, they would have to be set up not to cause confusion when there are warnings for small land areas, such as is the case currently for Beryl. --Ajm81 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately they aren't based on 1-2-3, which can be calculated easily enough, but the average error in the forecasts. The discrepancy can be seen in Beryl at the moment, compare the warning cone to the Mariners 1-2-3, the 1-2-3 is clearly a larger area.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Modernized infobox with image sizes or captions
28-Aug-2008: I have upgraded the infobox to use the more modern technology for infoboxes, to also allow image sizes/captions:
- changed "class=toccolours" to be "class=infobox";
- added new parameter "image_width" for "image" parameter;
- added new parameter "track_width" for "track" parameter;
- added new parameter "image_caption" for "image" parameter;
- added new parameter "track_caption" for "track" parameter;
- set default minimum box width as "280";
- put internal comments, to explain coding as NOTES & HISTORY.
Hopefully, the parameter track_width will help to make the forecast-map somewhat larger than the previous mandatory postage-stamp size. The infobox had been created back on 13July2006 when "class=toccolours" was used in many infoboxes. As customary, I have spent hours testing the changes (with both Firefox & IE browsers), in a separate user-space template, before releasing the changes to the live infobox template. Because I have upgraded many other old templates, the extensive changes only took several hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed bugs from old template
28-Aug-2008: I have also fixed bugs from the coding of the old template, which still had some problems:
- fixed to show value of parameter "1sustained";
- for the standalone satellite image, put "padding-top:2px" in place of a duplicate right-margin (was "padding-right:5px").
The infobox still tends to auto-resize to very wide displays (beyond 350px), when showing both satellite & forecast images, due to a wiki-formatting bug also active in the original template coding. As long as the sum of both image widths remains below 320px (150px+170px), the overall infobox width seems to fit within the typical infobox right-hand area. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with the new version is the top line takes up too little space, and the category can barely be seen. That is why I revised it. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
New track_topcaption aligns map
30-Aug-2008: I have added another new parameter, named "track_topcaption" which can be used to insert text or spacing above the forecast track map, allowing some vertical alignment beside the satellite photo. To omit a top-caption, use:
- track_topcaption = <font/>
A similar null tag could also be used to suppress the top caption; the default caption above the track-map is one line-break ("<br>"). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Infobox sometimes grows to over-wide box
08-Sep-2008: There is a wiki-format bug that sometimes widens the infobox way beyond the coded "280px" which normally would cause text to wrap within the 280px-width. I have removed similar bugs from several other old templates in the past, and I think this over-wide bug is caused internally by coding the title-corner hurricane category as "Hurricane Ike [2]" where the title-corner "2" (or whatever) is a forced section that causes the infobox to freak-out about the total width of 280px when category "2" has been forced into the infobox title. Cell-spacing bugs can be difficult to explain, and a possible solution would be to somehow code a cell width (such as "50px") into that title-corner cell, while keeping it a part of the total infobox width (of 280px). The problem came from the original coding of the infobox in 2006. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Bug fixed to avoid over-wide box
08-Sep-2008: I have found the problem of the over-wide box was caused by the data-columns having parameter width="100%"; to fix the problem, I reduced the data-columns (to width="80%"). The title-corner category was NOT a part of the problem, and the box formatted okay when the data-columns were omitted during testing. The wiki-format bug was caused by setting each data-column to be width="100%" of the space, while other columns were also part of the total width. Reducing data-columns to width="80%" fixes the over-wide box problem. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Row: "See more detailed information"
This template is currently being used for Hurricane Irene as well as 2011 Atlantic hurricane season Irene section. Can there be a similar template used for the season page, but maybe modify the last row's link on the template? Mfs1013 (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- How would you propose the link be changed - it currently goes back to the detailed section of the article page - which seems appropriate to me. --Trödel 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Administrative note: This section was also plonked on the 2011 AHS Talk page and was dealt with there.Jason Rees (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's what the
|stormarticleandsectnumparameters are for… Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
A whole new problem
Why is the see more line removed now!? Dont you guys thing its very important to have it!? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I restored the see more link; however, I agree that we should consider changing it. Here is the comment of the person who removed it. --Trödel 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- removing this line - proscribing section title names from a template makes editing very complicated for new users or users unfamiliar with templates (please RV if I break it) -- User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
Question (2012)
I'm using this template on a different wiki base called "wikia", everything on this template works just fine, except that it centers everything on my pages so it looks like it's a part of the infobox. Is there a way I can fix this? STO12 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Changes to the template
I would like to add a few new parameters to the template: lat, lon, within_units, and distance_from. These parameters would replace location. The reason why I want to do this is so that the template can use {{Coord}} template for the location.
lat and lon will be used if available, but the template will fall back to location for compatibility reasons.
Pages will have to be updated to use the new parameters, but it shouldn't take much effort. In fact, this template is only used for active tropical cyclones, and there usually aren't that many. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposed New Parameters Doc
| lat | Recommended The latitude of the storm as displayed in the location field. This parameter is used to create a coordinate using {{Coord}}. Example: 20.6|N converts to 20.6°N.Remember: Always include the unnamed direction (N/S) parameter after the latitude. For example: 20.6|N
|
|---|---|
| lon | Recommended The longitude of the storm as displayed in the location field. This parameter is used to create a coordinate using {{Coord}}. Example: 41.7|W converts to 41.7°W.Remember: Always include the unnamed direction (E/W) parameter after the longitude. For example: 41.7|W
|
| within_units | Optional The accuracy of the units displayed in the location field. Example: 20 nm converts to ± 20 nm.
|
| distance_from | Optional The distance the storm is from a certain city or island(s). Example: About 1205 mi (1935 km) WNW of the Cape Verde Islands. |
| location | Deprecated This parameter contains the coordinate, and optionally the location accuracy and distance from a given point. Important: This parameter has been deprecated in favor of lat, lon, within_units, and distance_from – please use those instead.
|
Important: Do not add a line break between any of the lat and lon parameters, named or unnamed, as this may cause unexpected results. If you must, do something like this:
{
lat=20.6|N<!--
-->lon=41.7|W
Links
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments
Oppose- If by doing this you mean taking out location (distance from town) and just having Coords then no. It needs distance to be easy to determine the exact location. United States Man (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)- That's true – I'll revise it. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- How about now? –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like it better now than the current way that it's formatted, nice work. United States Man (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I think it looks good and adds a valuable feature. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Just make sure it doesn't affect non-NHC basins in a bad way. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like the 2012 Pacific typhoon season article doesn't use either of the optional parameters – so I think it should be OK. I will probably create a test case for that. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I just realized that the Pacific typhoon season doesn't use the same template. Maybe I should propose a change for that one too. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral - nice idea but I foresee a problem of editors forgetting that the longitude of the Atlantic and East Pacific is negative.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - so we can add a comment like we do for the time/date. The same argument could be made to remove UTC time becuae editors may forget that UTC sometimes makes it a different day than EDT. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking I could somehow add a parameter for N/S/E/W. Something like this: 10|W. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Done Now you can use the N/S/E/W parameters. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking I could somehow add a parameter for N/S/E/W. Something like this: 10|W. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - so we can add a comment like we do for the time/date. The same argument could be made to remove UTC time becuae editors may forget that UTC sometimes makes it a different day than EDT. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: will the modifications to the template generate a coordinate at the top of the article? I'm concerned that Google will pick those up and display them in maps, which is not a good thing considering the ephemeral nature of a storm's position while it is still active. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does Google currently pick up the coordinates in the "Current storm information" section? Wouldn't this be essentially the same as that? Inks.LWC (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Google picks up coordinates coded with {{coord}}.[1] Do we use the coordinate template on current storm info? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, we currently use the {{coord}} in the "Current storm information" section, a separate section. Please see this edit, scroll down to the "Current storm information" section, and the coordinate is in the sentence:
As of 2 a.m. AST (0600 UTC) October 3, Tropical Storm Nadine is located within 20 nautical miles of 34.5°N 35.4°W
- –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which is what I said. My question is if there is any way to mark these inclusions of {{coord}} so that they don't show up in the Geographic Web layer on Google Maps. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to the {{coord}} documentation (Template:Coord#Caveats), it says:
Tools which read Wikipedia database dumps (such as Google Earth) often ignore inline coordinates. To ensure that coordinates are seen by these tools, one set should be displayed in the title. See How do I get my Wikipedia article to show up in the Google Earth Geographic Web layer?. However, if multiple title coordinates appear on a single page, they will overlap, making them illegible.
- The Google doc you mentioned said it would work anywhere in the article, but this documentation on {{coord}} seems to suggest otherwise.
- Anonymouse321 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have done further research and have found that Google Earth usually only picks up coordinates with the "display" parameter set to "title", not "inline". The coordinate in this template is marked default, which is "inline". –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that answers my questions. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to the {{coord}} documentation (Template:Coord#Caveats), it says:
- Which is what I said. My question is if there is any way to mark these inclusions of {{coord}} so that they don't show up in the Geographic Web layer on Google Maps. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, we currently use the {{coord}} in the "Current storm information" section, a separate section. Please see this edit, scroll down to the "Current storm information" section, and the coordinate is in the sentence:
- Google picks up coordinates coded with {{coord}}.[1] Do we use the coordinate template on current storm info? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does Google currently pick up the coordinates in the "Current storm information" section? Wouldn't this be essentially the same as that? Inks.LWC (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
So far, i haven't seen google picking up the "current storm" section.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉TalkContribs 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Support--Actually, i agree with Anonymouse321's design.Great job.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉TalkContribs 03:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Done The template change has been made. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
RSMC Category
The infobox displays the JTWC category in the heading instead of the RSMC category. Is there any possible solution? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anirudh Emani, do you have an example? Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. have a look at my sandbox here, please. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anirudh Emani, so is there still anything to do, or have you fixed it? Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Id personally prefer the number 4 being replaced by the initials VSCS in that example, which incidentally is what Anirudh is going on about i think.Jason Rees (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anirudh Emani, so is there still anything to do, or have you fixed it? Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
converting to use Template:infobox
So we just did this song and dance with {{Infobox tropical cyclone season}}... @Pigsonthewing and Jason Rees: you made some excellent points in the discussion there so if you could please chime in here. Jasper Deng has undone the conversion to {{Infobox}} because storm status should be boldened. I don't understand your wikitext, so I am reverting you while you fix that.
and Category 4 hurricane" not boldened is ugly.
... @Pigsonthewing: based on your previous comments this is nowhere close to a valid reason to revert a change... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would like the input of @TropicalAnalystwx13, Yellow Evan, Cyclonebiskit, and Hurricanehink: and other involved members of WPTC too.
- Also, for now, I'm disregarding Pigsonthewing's opinion on this, because if I recall correctly, he is topic-banned from the subject of infoboxes.
- And you still refuse to do what I think should be a simple fix (if I could understand your code).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: You haven't explained what the "simple fix" you want is. If you do so, I will gladly make the change. Pigsonthewing is a template editor so there is no way he is topic-banned from Infoboxes and the code is really not that difficult to understand. You can request the input of whomever you want but blatantly rolling back a massive improvement to the infobox and the code simply because you don't like that one line of text is not in bold is insane. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Deng's recollection is faulty. Furthermore, I have never been topic banned from such discussions. He also doesn't understand BRD, which he relies on in the edit summary of his second revert to be following, and which says (emboldening in original) "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle" and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once" and "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The conversion to {{infobox}} is quite clearly beneficial, and the multiple reverts of the conversion over a minor formatting preference are petty and inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Phardon me for responding late but I have been busy offline. Anyway it seems to me that @Jasper Deng: would like to see the current storm status like Category 4 hurricane (1-min mean) boldened like they were before. Personally I feel it is about time we either changed or got rid of the category in the top right hand corner, since it only shows the status of the system on the SSHWS and which isn't the majority of the time the official status of the system. For example at times in the SHEM: A system could be a Cat 4 officially but we are showing it as a 2. Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing, Zackmann08, and Titoxd: During the week since I posted my comments above, I have discovered that I can change the letter coding above, but I now wonder if the two letter coding in the top right hand coding is really needed? Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jason Rees: to be honest I don't really have an opinion on that. My work here was just to convert the box to use {{Infobox}}. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing, Zackmann08, and Titoxd: During the week since I posted my comments above, I have discovered that I can change the letter coding above, but I now wonder if the two letter coding in the top right hand coding is really needed? Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Phardon me for responding late but I have been busy offline. Anyway it seems to me that @Jasper Deng: would like to see the current storm status like Category 4 hurricane (1-min mean) boldened like they were before. Personally I feel it is about time we either changed or got rid of the category in the top right hand corner, since it only shows the status of the system on the SSHWS and which isn't the majority of the time the official status of the system. For example at times in the SHEM: A system could be a Cat 4 officially but we are showing it as a 2. Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Bug
There is a bug associated with this infobox, which is causing the infobox to display: Tropical low cyclone (Australian scale) when it should jsut display Tropical low. As a result i was wondering if this could be fixed by someone asap.Jason Rees (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Jason Rees: Same with South Pacific with Tropical disturbance cyclone and Tropical depression cyclone. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 04:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
RSMC gust
There should two gust section one for RSMC's measured gust and another for JTWC's one minute sustained gust. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 04:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do we need to present the gusts from the JTWC? Jason Rees (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Jason Rees, Yeah but the prob is that the gust section shows below the unofficial JTWC's one min sustained winds speed which cause confusion with the readers and some RSMC don't publish gust speed at all. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 13:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)