Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I just created this wikiproject, after several months of contemplating doing so. I hope everyone working on hurricane articles will get involved. I went ahead and wrote a bunch of guidelines, basically based on current practices...naturally since this is something I just wrote it doesn't necessarily represent community consensus and needs to be discussed. That discussion should probably go here for now...although eventually we may make these pages a little more structured. For a general TODO list, see the "tasks" item on the project page. Jdorje 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

• 05 Feb 2012 – Typhoon Gay (1992) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Featured article candidates

• 25 Jan 2012 – Tropical Storm Cindy (1993) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hylian Auree (t · c); see discussion

A-Class review

• 02 Jan 2012 – Hurricane Noel (talk · edit · hist) was put up for A-Class review by Graham1973 (t · c); see discussion
• 27 Feb 2006 – List of Arizona hurricanes (talk · edit · hist) was put up for A-Class review by Jdorje (t · c); see discussion

Good topic candidates

• 29 Dec 2011 – 1956 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
  The topic includes: Hurricane Flossy (1956), Hurricane Betsy (1956), Hurricane Greta (1956)
• undated – Hurricane Olivia (1975) (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated
• undated – 1975 Pacific hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated
• undated – 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated

Peer reviews

• 23 Jan 2012 – Cyclone Rewa (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jason Rees (t · c); see discussion
• 17 Jan 2012 – Hurricane Lenny (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Hurricanehink (t · c)
• undated – Hurricane Kathleen (1976) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?

Edit Currently at featured article candidates, featured list candidates, or featured topic candidates		Currently at peer review or featured picture candidates, or good topic candidates
Hurricane Igor (FA)	(link)	1986 Pacific hurricane season (PR)	(link)
Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (FL)	(link)	List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes (PR)	(link)
1997 Atlantic hurricane season (FT)	(link)	Cyclone Ingrid (FP)	(link)
		1975 Pacific hurricane season (GT)	(link)
		1906 Atlantic hurricane season (GT)	(link)

Articles currently at Good article nominations†
Cyclone Fay

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk) Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 Task forces → Seasons task force (talk) → Storms task force (talk) → Meteorology task force (talk) → Eastern Pacific task force (talk) → Atlantic task force (talk) Newsletter (talk) Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32B Project resources (talk) Jargon (talk) WikiProject statistics (talk) Article requests (talk) Merging discussions (talk) Vital articles (talk) Style guidelines (talk) Article tables by quality (talk) Assessment Main assessment page (talk) → Assessment tables (talk) → Assessment log (talk) → Assessment statistics (talk) Tropical cyclones portal

Season infobox listing for strongest storm

I'm not sure exactly when and why we started the practice, but I want to bring up a formal discussion over how we handle the season infoboxes. Currently, we put the strongest storm based on whatever storm has the lowest pressure. However, there isn't exactly consistency over whether "strongest" refers to winds or pressure. Our own project meteorologist opined that strongest should refer to winds, and deepest for pressure. For the most part, whatever storm has the lowest pressure also has the strongest winds, but that isn't always the case. For example, in this year's ATL season, Irene is listed as stronger than Katia due to a lower pressure. I always felt that was an odd semantic, and one that might be difficult for people to grasp. In addition, in older seasons, the pressure listings may be few and far between, which could result in a much weaker storm (by winds) being listed first.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we use both, strongest winds and lowest pressure in the infobox. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Because most would be rather redundant. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, I mean in the case where they are separate, we could use both highest winds and lowest pressure.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Why though? It's few and far between, and I do honestly feel that it creates more confusion than is worth it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that maybe we should list one as "Strongest (winds)" and then say either "Deepest (pressure): See Strongest" or "Deepest (pressure): xxxxxxxxxx" This seems to me like it wouldn't be redundant, and would cause some confusion to be eliminated. I do agree that when there is a stronger (winds) hurricane than the deepest (pressure) in a season that the two should be distinguished. Just my opinion. Gwickwire (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, I agree with YE, that we should list both in the infobox. It would only be one extra line. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a test at the 1985 Pacific hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

01M.Unnamed

Storm path

Did you notice the tropical system in the Golf of Lions which got classified by the NRL on 1800Z on 7 November? Pending later deciscion by the WMO I guess this system is inofficial and is not really part of the Atlantic Hurricane season, since IIRC, the eastern border of the RSMC Miama area of responsibility is the Greenwich meridian and likely won't get a regular name (the FU Berlin named this low like any other low for German forecasting purposes "Rolf", btw.). But what will we do with this storm? --Matthiasb (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it; my idea is just to add it into a "Medit tropical cyclone" page. HurricaneFan25 23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's just a low pressure area, there's not much notable about it. Do you have more information on the storm? Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this. What is weird are the SST which are, according to wunderground about 21 °C in the region. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Went to bed.

It's classified as a tropical cyclone, not a ST by the SSD. Dvorak T-numbers are around T3; see their page. HurricaneFan25 01:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whose page? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

NOAA's Satellite Services Division. In particular the 0000Z bulletin. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I started a storm path map to go wherever the article goes.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope that you create this article because I would like translate it to catalan. I don't know enough for create it.--KRLS (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you understand German you can take the torso I created de:Genuatief Rolf. I think I won't be able to do much on this during the next five or six days at least (for private reasons). --Matthiasb (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I yesterday uploaded a MODIS image of the system. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edited link. BTW: A Genuatief ist what German meteorologists call a de:Vb-Wetterlage. It's more or less similar to the cyclogenesis of some midwestern Blizzards in the U.S. when a low in Southern Texas is fueled with lot of moisture over the northern Gulf and moves north eastwards to the Great Lakes, though it can occur at any time of the year. For example, the infamous floods at the Oder and Elbe rivers in 1997 and 2002 were caused by this phenomen. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not create an article for it? It caused severe floods and facilities in both France and Italy. -- Meow 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you guys notice that the page Mediterranean tropical cyclone was redirected to this page: User:Atomic7732/Mediterranean tropical cyclone? Well, I was thinking, since you guys are so interested in these rare storms, why not restore the MTC (Mediterranean Tropical Cyclone) page to what it used to be? The heck, I don't even get why they turn MTC into a redirect page. It seems very unreasonable, and unneccessary. If you want, I can undo the edit (after I am given permission, of course), or you can revert it yourselves. Wouldn't that make it easier on you guys? Try it out, and you'll see what I mean. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, User:Atomic7732/Mediterranean tropical cyclone already has a section on Tropical Storm 01M (more commonly known as Storm 99L, or INVEST 99L). Just an FYI for you guys. Oh, I am perfectly fine with a new page being created for this storm. In fact, that sounds like a pretty good idea. And did you know that 2 other Wikis (German is one of them) already have a page on 01M? Well, if you want (and I don't see why you can't), go ahead and create a page for Tropical Storm 01M. That would serve to give the readers more information on the storm. Keep me updated (through my talk page, for any major, or important updates), and I'll see how all of this works out. Good luck!! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Mediterranean tropical cyclone page, so the information that the page formerly contained should now be much easier (and much more convenient) to access. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't work. I guess I will need a lot of support, in order to make this happen. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Windspeeds

Earlier i asked a question on the IRC channel, and since there was no clear consensus i will post it here.

If the NHC were to re analyse an TC that existed in the EPAC but peaked in the CPAC (which is a basin :P) and the CPHC did not update their records who would we go with?.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We would list both in that case, since both are encyclopediac. The official windspeed (as listed in the infobox) should be the CPHC data, since it is an RSMC despite the CPAC not being a basin. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, since in this case the NHC is more reliable. And no, the CPAC is not it's own basin. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the NHC more reliable? The CPHC is an RSMC. They have their own best track and their own archives. For Hurricane Emilia (1994), we used the CPHC data over the NHC data. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is more reliable because it is newer. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Newness has no role in reliability. HurricaneFan25 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? NHC has done more re-analysis, so wheather the CPHC updates the database or no is not relevant IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

What if it was in the western Pacific though? If JTWC did an update and JMA didn't, we would still go with the JMA, since they're the official agency. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but we have proof to show the the offical agency is wrong by another reliable source. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Oh, certainly when two reliable sources contradict each other, we should mention both. However, for the official data (formation/dissipation date and peak intensity), we should go by the RSMC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, since we have evidence that the RSMC/TCWC is not correct. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree to what? When two reliable sources disagree, we should list both of them, and we go with the RSMC for the official data. We've been doing that for years, as with Emilia in the CPAC, as with Pongsona when we use the JMA wind speeds and formation/dissipation dates, as with mentioning Vamei in the NIO (per JTWC) but not including those dates in the infobox. That's our policy. We mention competing warning centers but we stick with who's official. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why the CPHC is (still) a RSMC is because it is a backup site for the NHC, and Nadi needs a backup site as well (though the latter only in case if both Brisbane and Wellington are off, see operational plan for the South Pacific). I am not sure wether the CPHC is also a backup site for the RSMC Tokyo-. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Um neither the JTWC or the BoM are backups to Nadi for TC forecast advisories, they are backups for issuing the watches and warning advisories (SWBs). I also note that the CPHC was not a backup to NHC before this year it used to be HPC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Timelines

I think we need to have this discussion. We need to have some sort of standard with regards to what article gets a timeline. The old practice was that every season could get a timeline, but that was challenged by the assertion that they constitute a content fork. There is a significant amount of overlap in most timelines, so I feel we should have consistency. Should we restrict it to the more (or even most) active seasons? Should it be available to any season? What do you all think? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel our more active seasons should get timelines. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Like what? Top ten most active seasons? Seasons listed hyperactive via ACE? What if the next ten Atlantic seasons have more than the 2005 season? Should a newer, more active season cause an older one to lose its status? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Any season that had a high amount of impact. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just about every ATL season has that, but most EPAC seasons do not, so that will create so many ATL timelines and too few EPAC timelines. Not to mention the fact that timeline don't include info about impact. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should impact determine a timeline? As YE said, timelines don't really deal with impact. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do one of three things.

1) Give the top 10 most active seasons timelines

2) Go by season importance (all seasons with high importance can get timelines)

3) Go case by case, depending on both MH and impact

4) Go by number of storms above average, say 19 in the EPAC and 15 for the ATL.

YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's four, not three, but I get your point. Given that more active seasons in general have more detail, in which case the season article might not be able to have every category change, then I personally think that the timelines should be reserved for option four, which would be four above average in both basins. For the Atlantic, that would allow most of the current seasons to maintain their timelines (which makes sense given their level of interest - note their popularity). For EPAC, that'd cover the most active seasons, I presume. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, may I propose an alternative? Can we just get rid of all of the timelines? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Now Hink, you already know the answer to that question. Not only would that cause a lot of arguing between everybody on IRC, but Wikipedia as a whole as well. It'd be like the huge "color" scheme discussion that took place several years ago. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it could be quite simple. We have about 30 timelines that aren't featured that could easily be redirected/deleted. We already deleted the 1997 AHS timeline on the basis of a content fork. Why not 30 more? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should we? As JC mentioned in IRC, if the timeline is featured, that means that it is of good quality. And if it is of good quality, why should it be taken away? If you don't like timelines, don't pretend they exist. We could stop making them, but if somebody creates one, why should we just delete it? You say that they are content forks, but what about the "Meteorological History" in a storm article, and a MH subsection? The MH subsection goes into greater detail just as a timeline goes into greater detail. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we compromise and do option 3? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should. The progression has been toward removing timelines. I think we should get a guideline set. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Progression? How so? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we cant do option 3, why can't we do option 4? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::::::There have been several timelines merged over the past few months. As for your earlier comment, we haven't had a timeline promoted in the same time period. The 1997 AHS timeline was successfully deleted, citing the content fork. One user changed his vote from redirect to keep on the basis that there should be a broader discussion. Well, this is that discussion. We've had input from outside editors. The timelines are a fork, with extremely minimally more info than the main season article. This is as opposed to the MH articles, which contain significantly more content. However, I wouldn't mind such a discussion on those, since I could see content fork issues there too. But, that should be for another day. Today is Thanksgiving, and I'm giving thanks for my ability to speak (type) my mind against these redundancies! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider timelines to be sub-articles of the season? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

<-I consider them forks and redundancies of the season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Timelines should only be used when:

1. The season was hyperactive or
2. the season had many overlapping storms (ones that occurred at the same time).
3. In disregard to the quality of the articles, they should either be merged or deleted based on the above factors.

HurricaneFan25 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb here, but the more I think of it, we really should keep all timelines. The alternative is having endless discussions along the lines of "should χ season have a timeline," which is a question that cannot really be answered for current seasons—which is when this issue will come up most frequently in the future—at least until the season is over. At that point, you lose the benefit of being able to build the timeline incrementally as the season goes on. Also, the acrimony caused by the ensuing endless debates will cause us to lose contributors, and we all know we can't really afford that. Thus, we either nuke all or keep all, and as people have said previously that they find them useful, my opinion falls in that direction. (By the way, the "content fork" argument is a bunch of bollocks. A timeline in a chronologically-oriented article such as a hurricane season is a reasonable expectation to have, and the timelines are summary style splits from the original 2004 format. They were useful back in that day, and they are still useful now.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ooh, I forgot about the old 2004 format. I agree that this is an acceptable type of content fork, but in dead seasons, I do not see the point in having a separate article for it. I honestly feel that we should go about case by case. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yea, I was going to ask, what about Timeline of the 1914 Atlantic hurricane season? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Leave it as a redirect. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That was more to Titoxd. Tito, do you mean that all seasons should have all timelines? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, if every season should have a timeline, what if it was like this, as User:12george1 proposed - [1]. I'm personally more against there being a separate article, but if all of it was contained, I wouldn't mind so much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Why all this discussion about which season should get a timeline and which shouldn't? I'd just get rid of them all. They're unwiki-like and pretty redundant imo. They're not even legitimate timelines, so the naming is quite whimsical. Finally, they shouldn't fall under the list category, but they don't abide to the structure of an encyclopedic article either. Overall I don't think wiki is a place to have such hurricane "timelines", honestly. PS: No use in arguing with/responding to me. I won't be watching/replying to this page, and pretty sure my opinion on this will remain unchanged. Auree ★ 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I disagree with most of your points. They are lists (they list event in order about a hurricane season). They don't have the structure of an article because they are lists. With that said, I do agree that they are somewhat redundant. And Hink, I feel that 12g1's proposal could work for quiet season, but at a certain point, it becomes excessive and needs to be split off. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
            • But no YE. If it's like how 12G has it, then it'll be the same length for every season when it's hidden (which is the default). I think it's a great compromise. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
              • As Tito said on IRC, it would still cause page load and other technical issues. I can see this working for most seasons, but some season like 2005 AHs, 1992 PHS, or even 2010 AHS it wont work. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
                • So, whatever articles would be too long could have the timelines. It should be a natural summary style where if it's too long, it gets split. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yea, this allows most modern day ATL seasons to keep thier timelines. I feel it's best to go by this case by case, every season is different. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ACE perhaps reloaded

Hallo all. According to Cyclonebiskit's note on my discussion page and me reverting of the removal of the ACE table in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season article earlier today I am bringing up this, certainly again.

Where is the point to have this tables in the article during and remove them after the season? Why not duing it the KISS way? If it is notable and important let's keep it also after the season. If it has no lasting value and is deemed to be OR then, IMHO, it has no place in the article during the season as well. (Note, that I do not consider doing simple math operations according to the TCRs' best tracks as OR).

Further, actualizing those tables during the season every six hours (if storms are active) and throwing the same table away when the season has ended is a waste of time, a waste of work and it makes version histories needlessly more complicated. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we have had extensive debates over the usefulness of ACE. It was a term created only about a decade ago, so it hasn't really had the chance to be applied for each storm outside of Wikipedia. Generally, in real practice, ACE has only been applied to either monthly or seasonal totals, as evidenced by the NHC including it in monthly discussions and NOAA including it for each year. The other side is that some argue that because we can do it, we should include it. That raises the concerns of OR, as we shouldn't be doing the calculating ourselves. Titoxd proposed a solution for that, as he could easily create a computer program and put all of the individual storms on a website outside of WP. My personal opinion is we should only include the seasonal ACE (unless there is a monthly record, so we can cite it to NHC). Individual storm ACE values isn't used yet, so I don't think we should be indicating that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this again, but I've pointed out many times that many reputable sources do use ACE to compare individual systems. As per NCDC: ...we are including this information to allow for comparison between individual cyclones across all basins.... Or, if the NCEPs aren't reliable enough, you could always refer to the WMO: "(ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the Atlantic hurricane seasons." I don't know how else to prove it. Juliancolton (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't done for every storm though. Where can I find a source indicating the value of a storm's ACE in 1952? Or 1885? I've said before, ACE can be used to compare storms, but is it? Furthermore, is it as important as necessitating its own section in every season article? People use winds and pressure so much more when comparing storms. And I don't think either that we should put the ACE in infoboxes (again, for the reason that you can't simply look up the ACE for a random storm in 1915). Our more current season articles shouldn't be fundamentally different from our older ones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If the WMO and NCDC both state that ACE "is used" to compare cyclones, I have no reason to question them. We obviously use ACE on a storm-by-storm basis on some occasions (Ioke, Ivan, 1899), and—if we can find a way to reliably source and document it—the WMO definition of the index permits its use as such with no bounds or limits as to its validation. I would venture to say that ACE values are used about as often as surface pressure readings in all but HURDAT-esque databases; most articles or warnings about a storm never mention its central pressure, and often don't even mention specific maximum sustained winds. I've proven that it is both valid and plausible to use ACE from storm to storm, and I'm unable to find any source that specifically suggests not utilizing it to that end. The argument that season articles shouldn't be different is a little flimsy, as well, I think... newer articles are obviously fundamentally different (advisories, news articles, satellite images, more data, TCRs). If we can only get reliable ACE data back to, say, 1950, what would be the reason not to use it? If it's because it wouldn't be consistent, then we would also have to scrap satellite imagery for standard surface charts. Juliancolton (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But I have yet to see any links, documents, papers that actually do compare cyclones with ACE, in the way that windspeeds and pressures are, sans the extremely rare exceptions of Ioke, Ivan, and 1899. IMO, if we get a source that actually lists every storm's ACE, then I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if it was part of both infoboxes (small and article). Would that work? I don't see why ACE should get its own section. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does the source need to list the ACE for every single storm? Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? Since it's clear that two non-professionals can disagree, we need to defer to the authoritative tropical cyclone agencies, which WMO and NOAA classify as. Let me break down your argument: you said that "individual storm ACE values isn't used yet", which can be rewritten as "ACE values are not yet used for individual storms" without changing the meaning. The WMO states: "ACE is [...] used [...] to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones". This directly contradicts your earlier statement, which I'm sure you'll readily accept. Given the choice between the opinions of editors (I don't really remember who's on what side in this issue) and the statements by the top body for governing meteorological research, anybody familiar with the verifiability and original research policies on WP would accept the WMO as fact. And since the WMO explicitly and unambiguously establishes that ACE is (a word whose meaning cannot be changed; either ACE is used or it is not used) used, then it should no longer be a question as to whether or not experts utilize ACE for the purpose of comparing specific storms. Simply a matter of reliable sources. Now, with that said, I don't really believe you've never seen any documents that list ACE values along with each storm, which is really the same manner in which winds and pressures are used. Dr. Ryan Maue certainly uses it as a primary piece of information. And, most importantly, the NCDC puts ACE in their infobox equivalents in their monthly reports on TCs. In fact, their infoboxes and ours present identical information, with the exception of their inclusion of ACE for each storm. They list it directly below pressure and maximum winds. Juliancolton (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant one that included it further back then the current season. But you ignored my question. What about adding ACE to the infoboxes? How is ACE any more important than winds or pressure? Both of them are used far more when comparing each storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hink, if one would follow your argumentation one would not be allowed to make use of the Template:Convert, and we would be sticked with using imperial data when no metric data are given. In fact, the best track for each storm is given, at least in the TCR and calculating the ACE is a more or less simple calculation, a quadration of the wind speeds given in the TCR (if the storm is a tropical system and if it has at least tropical storm strength), summing them all up and finally dividing through 10,000. It's like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius or vice versa.

Your statement How is ACE any more important than winds or pressure? Both of them are used far more when comparing each storm. is a bit say simplifying. Which storm was the bigger one? This year's Dora or this year's Hilary?

I don't think ACE is more important than the pressure and this more than the wind speeds and those more than numbers of damage and deaths. It's just another approach, as to include the factor time. And maybe it won't be world wide used never, for which one reason may be that the WMO and most other RSMCs (except for the IMD) stick on their ten minute sustained wind speed while the NOAA keeps its one minute sustained winds.

However, if we're looking into the season forecasts, the NOAA predicts ACEs as well as the CSU, TSR and the MetOffice do. And if I read the blog of Jeff Masters I won't find many entries during the last weeks or couple of months in which comparing the ACE of this year's AHS with that of former years wasn't a topic. I don't see a reason not to include the ACE into the individual storm infoboxes.

But actually that was not my point. My point is: if we don't need them after the sesason, then there's no reason to spend time and work into updating those figures every six hours. Or more simplistic: if we don't want them after the season anymore, we do not need them during the season. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

<--I believe you're referring to a "routine calculation" with regards to the convert template, and that is perfectly fine with how we do winds and pressure. However, ACE is hardly a routine calculation if we're the ones doing it. In my opinion, we should only include ACE when a reputable source includes it. That would eliminate updating it every six hours and the sourcing issue. Whether we keep it in the table or put it into the infobox is for another discussion perhaps. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's try to figure it out; here are several different questions to resolve (and please correct me, if I am concluding wrongly).

1. For some years each season we're calculating the ACE and include a table into the season's article. The main question is: Does this calculation state OR or is it really a simple "routine calculation"?
2. Another question: what is the benefit of including the ACE tables during the season? (The question is indirectly related to the problem above.)
3. For some reason it was discussed (I haven't seen that discussion that time, so sorry I did not get involved earlier) that those tables are not needed anymore if the season is over. Why? Does the end of the season make some data less important in contrary to the time when the season is still active? Also, relating to question 2.: What is the benefit of removing those tables?
4. Another question which not directly depends on the questions above but is also related: Should ACE numbers be included in individual storm articles and/or infoboxes (e.g. Infobox hurricane oder Infobox hurrican small)? If so should this only be done if the individual ACE was published by a reliable source or should be accepted a "routine calculation"? And: if so, should the templates be modified/ammended?

I'm not presuming any outcome of those question at this moment, but do we agree that those are the questions in which "we" are dissenting? Or please add and correct, if I have missed something. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that ACE falls under WP:CALC. Calculating ACE is fairly simple and can easily be done on a regular calculator as long as we have a source that says how to calculate it. And no, ACE is used to compare storms as JC pointed out. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I HIGHLY disagree that ACE falls under WP:CALC. "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age." It isn't any of that. As pointed out elsewhere (I think), our ACE values are not consistent with NHC's or Ryan Maue. Therefore, we are doing something wrong, and we should just use what other people have. We shouldn't be publishing original data like that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ryan Maue includes intermediate advisories when calculating ACE. We can use Tito's solution for the problem. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, if Tito makes it, contains how ACE is sourced, and other Wikipedians agree it is reliable, then we're fine to use it. That still brings up the question (as Matthiasb said) of how and where we put it. I'm still in the position that it should not have its own section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the season summary section, along with the season effects table. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Like how we have the season total now in the season summary? I'm for that in every article, plus the ACE in the season effects table. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a brilliant idea to me. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, works for me. However, before we start adding the ACE's back in, we need the website. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have ACE from the NCDC for storms 2005-2008, so perhaps we can add it in for those storms during that time period, as well. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

<-- Do we know if that's operational data or not? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure myself. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New infobox allowing JTWC and RSMC tracks

I have long been attempting to make RSMC tracks be used in non-NHC basins instead of JTWC, but according to several people this would be "inconsistent" with data. So, I decided to create a template (which can be found here and I just realized that it is in the mainspace) that would allow for the already uploaded JTWC tracks to show up below RSMC tracks using RSMC location data and converted 10-min -> 1-min wind data (as suggested by Iune here quite a while ago). The template in action can be seen here. Comments? Should we implement it? I'm not really sure what I need to be suggesting be done with the template. Ask anything that needs clarification, please. atomic7732 20:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My previous arguments against using the RSMC data are more or less nullified here since this is to go around them...all I can say is that I'm not a fan of how it looks but the idea itself is good. I'll leave this one up to others to decide since my vote is strongly opinionated :P Also, in many cases, there wil only be a difference in the intensity, not the location so the reason for having two maps that are almost identical will seem somewhat redundant. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it adds that much. The whole multi-warning center can be rather confusing. I think we should just try and make it as simple as possible. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really that much more complex. It won't make much of a difference to anyone using the tracks who doesn't really know that there are multiple warning centers, even if they were using it for a school project or something that is used to show people who have even less knowledge on the subject. atomic7732 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I also just added labels below each track, I think it makes it look a bit better, plus it's more helpful. atomic7732 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with atomic, it looks better this way. Just make sure to wikilink the warning center agencies per WP:MOS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@Atomic7732: There are rules for converting different wind speeds, and they're official. — Your problem with the NHC in your infobox example nr. 3 is resolvable easy, you just need to swap the NHC track maps into the RSMC field, sinde the NHC is the responsible RSMC for Atl and EPac/CPac. The JTWC does not issue advisories in those basins. – I am finding this bitrackian infobox confusing. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the thing with the NHC one was I didn't know how to get it to remove one of the things, it just puts a blank TC image there. atomic7732 02:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Just as a heads up: The BoM has just released a lot of BT Data here, as a result im gonna be running round like a headless chicken and updating the infoboxes. Amongst the highlights ive seen so far is Guba has finally been BT'd after 4 long years, and downed to a 65 knot system.Jason Rees (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Meetup

In case anyone is interested, today, Mitchazenia, Cyclonebiskit, and I are having a WPTC meetup in New York. I believe it is the first for our project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Identification request

Can someone identify the location of this report? It's not at Freeport nor Blackthorn. Thanks, HurricaneFan25 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

I just stumbled upon this. Longshore, 1998/2008 is a source I've seen used in numerous tropical cyclone FAs and GAs. I've found some information from the book to be false before; why should we consider it to be a reliable source? HurricaneFan25 — 1:50 pm, Today (UTC+0)

As a project, we decided years ago that it wasn't and that we should avoid its use. Thegreatdr (talk) 4:23 pm, Today (UTC+0)

I think that just because something has several bits of false info in it that we shouldnt avoid it alltogether like you seem to be suggesting David. Esspecailly when it is difficult to get decent sources in some Regions, we just have to be carefull.Jason Rees (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of natural that if somebody publishes numerous very obvious errors (ones that could be found on a casual read-through, even without fact-checking the numerical nuances), their credibility goes down. It's like if you're arguing with someone and 3 out of their 10 statements are automatically proven false—would you trust their other 7? It's unfortunate, really; the book is very comprehensive in its coverage of individual storms, and would be a great resource if somebody verified the info and gave it a legitimate publisher Juliancolton (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of dissipation

This brings up a very good question. What should the date of dissipation in the infobox be? The date the low went bye bye or when the RMSC ceased advisories? Any thoughts would be more than welcome. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO the infobox should give the date it actually dissipated and its ET transition, but only if there was an ET transition; otherwise just leave the date as the day it became a RL. HurricaneFan25 — 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HurricaneFan25, and Hurricane Igor's infobox is an excellent example of how it should be used. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree here, i think that we would benefit more if dissipation meant dissipation and not some random point where advisories are ceased but systems are still tracked in the TWOs.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The old project standard (and what the NHC does) is indicating whenever is the last date that the storm was a tropical cyclone. For example, if a tropical cyclone became extratropical at 0000 UTC on September 1, it would be listed as dissipating as August 31, since it wasn't tropical on the 1st. I think we could start listing the actual dissipation date (whenever the low level circulation actually became diffuse and no longer existed) is an important date that should be listed (for example, list it in <small>), but, seeing as we're a tropical cyclone Wikiproject, we should list whenever is the last date that a given storm is a tropical cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem there is that people are getting so bleedin confused by it as evidence by my talkpage.Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get it from your page. However, if there is confusion, perhaps we need to change what "dissipation" is called in the Infobox. For example, if it became extratropical, add something like [ET=yes], and [ETdate=September 2]. Then that'd create the ET transition date that we sometimes use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea too me. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WPTC role call

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Members. Notices will be sent out using MessageDeliveryBot later. HurricaneFan25 — 21:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need a roll call?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, no need for roll call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the same thing as every other WPTC subpage...doesn't really make a difference if we have it or not. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, just making sure the list doesn't get outdated. HurricaneFan25 — 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The list is not outdated though. I don't feel this is the best way to go through it, checking user contribs one by one is the best way IMO. Mind if I revert the role call? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'd revert that. There are people who don't participate on here who might not see that. Why not send out a notice or something? That's how we've done it in the past. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I requested a bot delivery of the role call. HurricaneFan25 — 22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, we should created a list of active members here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

How about leaving it full stop for the timebeing since it is the wrong time of the year to be asking people imo.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would not mind that either, after all, the list is currently not outdated. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Project competition

With the WikiCup approaching fast, I thought it'd be fun if we had our own internal Wikicup, so I created this contest. All of the rules are there, and anyone can join at any time. We can discuss the rules and stuff, but I just put down what was rambling through my head. Basically, the focus is on improving existing articles. If you an improve an article by one class (start to C), you get one point. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass timeline fixing needed!

Alright, so, all hurricane season timeline's on Wikipedia are going to need fixing. Apparently, the NHC/NOAA forgot to add 118 km/h to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, as it goes from an intense tropical storm at 117 km/h to a minimal hurricane at 119 km/h. They are going to need to be fixed to where hurricane starts at 118 km/h. If you are confused by what I mean, here is an example of what needs to be changed; example. Assistance would be appreciated. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Or we could just delete all of the timelines, since all of them are content forks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the timeline debate, Hink :| – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sidestepping the entire "should we have timelines" idiocy, the NHC puts the bottom threshold for Cat 1 as 119 km/h.[2] If anything, I'd say the intense tropical storm category ends at 118 km/h. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, idiocy aside, the NHC lists a tropical storm as having winds up to 118 km/h. I don't know where we got the 117 from. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We got the 117 for a tropical storm ending and 118 for a hurricane starting from various WMO op plans including Page 7, Page 10.Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• K, here is the idiocy with the AFD and the timeline whatnots. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Milestone up for grabs

Assuming that the count at the section is accurate, you all will hit 250 Atlantic tropical cyclone GAs pretty soon, you need six more. Might want to trump that, let the Signpost know, etc. and claim some well earned community praise. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Tropical Cyclones in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment stats

I've been working on an excel document on Google documents. If anyone wants it, I'll share it with you. Basically, I calculated different stats by basin with the metric Wikiwork. For those of you who don't know, Wikiwork is a technique that adds up each article based on quality. An FA is 0 points, A is 1, and so on. The Wikiwork total is found and then divided by the number of articles.

For the Atlantic, I split it for 1950 to present, and then pre-1950, since there are so many Atlantic articles. Since 1950, there are 488 articles with a WW of 2.59. Before 1950, there are 172 articles with a WW of 4.24, which is due to the high number of start of stub class season articles. Combined, there are 660 Atlantic storm/season articles for a WW of 3.02.

The Eastern Pacific is in the best shape, with 237 articles and a Wikiwork of 2.74, the lowest of any basin. If you combined the ATL and EPAC (the "NHC basins", if you will), there are 897 articles and a WW of 2.94. Perhaps it's worth pointing out now that the NHC basins represent about 69% of the total articles.

The other basins aren't so good. The Western Pacific is in the worst shape, with 218 articles and a WW of 4.53. Majority of that is due to the very high number of stub season articles. The last of the NHEM basins, the North Indian Ocean, has 59 articles and a WW of 4.03, better than any of the SHEM basins but worse than any of the other NHEM basins.

The NHEM as a whole has 1174 articles, which is 90% of the total number of articles. The WW was 3.31.

The remaining 10% of the articles come from the SHEM, which has a total of 125 articles and a WW of 4.04. The SWIO has the least articles of any basin with 32, and it boasts a WW of 4.03. Australia has 44 articles and a WW of 4.06. And the SPAC has 49, the most articles in the SHEM, and a WW of 4.02, the best in the SHEM. That credit goes largely to User:Jason Rees, who has written most of the good articles there.

So, overall, when you add up all of the season and storm articles, there are 1299, excluding any of the current ones. Here is a chart breaking down the number of articles by basin. That means that, barring any sudden additions, Cyclone Funso will probably be the 1300th article. The overall Wikiwork is 3.38, which corresponds to between a B and C class article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you happen to have WW stats from previous years? I'd be interesting to see the change over time, and would answer the question "Are we getting these articles to GA and/or FA status at a rate that is greater than, equal to, or less than the rate that nature is generating article-worth storms?" Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Excuse my intrusion into your domain. I'm not a regular here by any stretch.

No problem. Unfortunately, we do not. I spend a lot of time making this. I used to keep track of individual storm articles' stats, but not the season articles too. However, we'll be able to keep track of progress in the future. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)