Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 →

Contents

Articles for EPAC storms

Do you think its is time to do articles for EVERY storm in the EPAC. 2006 has a bunch now and 2007 has several.

2 things: A article for Norbert is coming. A article for Five-E is coming.

Also, I have several request on the Article request

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

NO - The only ones to get articles are ones that make landfall OR are Basin crossers that make it from the EPAC to the WPAC Jason Rees (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Every storm can get an article; that theory is backed up by the dozens of fishspinners that have recently received articles, many of which are of good quality. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Erick is a good example. Jiliancolton you did a good job there. Bud is the only bad one. Dilia is OK. I am surprised that none has done an article for Nora.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bud is the only bad one. All there rest will soon be GA's.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
We have proven that fish-spinners can support articles, so we should allow them to have articles. There is no reason not to. Plasticup T/C 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless the article sucks. In that case, we shouldn't have an article, and we're better off with a small, coherent section in the season article than a bunch of rambling crap in the storm article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
ok maybe we should take it on a case by case basis as i think there could be a few "Fish spinners" within the WPAC that could get articles Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the threshold should be whether there is a decent article. There is no sense in creating nonsense pages on every storm, but if someone sits down and writes a reasonable article on a fish spinner, I think it should be allowed to stay. Plasticup T/C 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we merge Bud?--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Even, we've merged plenty of your articles, but you've reverted numerous times. And now you're in favor of merging articles that other people create? I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There is/was a discussion on article creation guidelines. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to merge Lowell because no one is letting me expand it. Bud is the worst article I ever seen.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to merge Lowell because no one is letting me expand it. Bud is the worst article I ever seen.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


** 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 for any reason. Example Hurricane Adolph (2001). It also dose not need the year. Adolph (2001) should be Adolph

** The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one

** 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 that makes landfall and produces heave rain or winds above 44 mph. They should be an article for TD 2-E (1976)
    • If it is the strongest storm of the season (or makes the top three). Example Hurricane Hernan (2008)
    • Any storm thats impacts the US or Central America (because Central America is rare). Example Tropical Storm Norma (1970).
    • Peak winds are above 150 mph.

An off- season storm or a storm that reaches a unusual latitude or longitude. Example Hurricane Fausto (2002) and Tropical Storm Wene (2000).


These should be the Guidlines.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no room to call Bud the worst article you've ever seen, and doing so after creating so many poor articles yourself is of very bad taste. Now, back on-topic, who's not letting you expand Lowell? We just don't want you spamming it with thousands of kb of irrelevant information, as you have done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All the impact I try keeps on getting dealted. They say it for Ike not Lowell. I say its for all these.

Iowa flood of 2008

Tropical Strom Lowell (2008)

Hurricane Ike

2008 Midwest floods

Please try to write coherently, here and in your articles. I have no idea what you are saying nor why you posted a huge amount of struck-out text. Are you just spamming this page or what? Plasticup T/C 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This would require many new pages.

This should be first on the list for new articles:

Tropical Storm Boris (2002)

Hurricane Madline (1976)

Hurricane Cosme (1989)

Hurricane Jova (2005)

Hurricane Fausto (1996)

Tropical Storm Wene (2000)

Tropical Storm Upana (2000)

Hurricane Daniel (2000)

Hurricane Virgil (1992)

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed spelling, please try to fix your mistakes. --Rose09 Rashmi Next 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Evan, what are you trying to say? What is your contribution to this discussion? I don't understand. Plasticup T/C 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That we should make the article policies clear. My suggestions are above. The list of storms are the other member of the Procet should make. i am taking care of this list.

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Evan, don't you dare create all of those articles. It is bad enough when you spam the encyclopedia with two or three pages of nonsense. We don't have the time to clear up 25 pages of it. Write one article properly, then we can talk about moving on to others. Plasticup T/C 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am going to work on Kika of 08 and Katrina of 67 so please take that into mind.

--Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • And Hali and Ele

--Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have Iselle and 05E in production right now. I'm hoping to get 05E out within a day or two, and Iselle a day after that. They're both in sandbox pages that are accessible from my userpage. I do agree that we don't need articles for every eastern pacific storm. Same goes for the Atlantic but we do it anyways right? I think that we shouldn't discourage the creation of the EPac articles but should be well written before being put out in the mainspace. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted I'll be busy until about 1800 UTC on October 17, but I'll see what I can do about Tina. And possibly Tara as well, once I find good sources. Dylan620 Life story 01:05 UTC October 16, 2008

Article importance

I'll quote Titoxd. We have to upgrade that scale to reflect project-only importance instead of Wikipedia-wide importance, because WP:v0.7 will be bot-selected. I agree with him. We need to think of importance as if we were only a weather encyclopedia, not just part of a larger, amazing encyclopedia. For example, all retired storms would either be high or top, with top being reserved for (soft-limit) the 100 most important hurricane topics we have. Someone on the WPTC IRC brought up a Very-low importance class. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For the season articles we need to upgrade the importance scale but we need to do it on a Basin by Basin as we found its hard to distingish one basin from another Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we need to reassess our importance ratings. However, a new importance class would just add more process, IMO; there won't be enough difference from Low-importance, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing importance across basin, across era, and across article type is incredibly complicated and is inevitably going to lead to contradictions and make people unhappy. If you consider JUST the 2007 season for a moment, one might make the distinction:

  • Low - storms not impacting land that aren't otherwise notable. Examples: Ingrid, Jerry, Karen, Melissa
  • Medium - storms that had low impact that someone somewhere might care about. Maybe they even killed someone or did some damage. Examples: Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Erin (could be high), Gabrielle, Humberto, Lorenzo, Ten
  • High - storms with a significant effect on land, doing significant damage or killing a reasonable number of people. Examples: Noel, Olga (could be medium)
  • Top - storms doing catastrophic damage or killing many people. Examples: Dean, Felix (could be medium).

Even looking at this one season with this criteria - and ignoring meteorological notability - is surely going to start making people upset. The problem is we have so many articles on truly "low" importance storms now that any storm striking land has to be of higher importance than that, IMO; you can't lump a storm that killed 10 people in the same category with one that lasted for 6 hours and affected nobody. Yet that leaves only high and top classifications for truly damaging storms. Honestly there would be nothing wrong with a system like this, except that the distribution of articles would be far different than what we have now (and in the Atlantic there might be more medium than low-importance storm articles). When you compare to season articles (still considering only the Atlantic), it would mean even the least notable seasons would still be at the high end of medium, with at least half of season articles given high/top importance (2007 would probably be High I'd think, but close to Top). Look at sub-articles and Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico at Mid-importance is probably okay, though many effects articles would still be high-importance and basically none would ever be Low by definition. Get to other basins and the distribution for seasons is similar but most basins would have a lot more low-importance storms (which do not at present generally get articles). Almost all meteorology articles would end up being top-importance. The 2004 season would probably have 5 top-importance articles, with the 2005 season having at least 4. Again, if you consider this to be importance 'within the wikiproject, having a large number of top- and high-importance articles, while most potential low-importance articles remain unwritten (at least for now) could make sense.

jdorje (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there's already an existing discussion on this, I think we should bring this back up, since there's clearly some inconsistencies over it. Should the importance scale be evenly distributed over all storms (relatively even number of low, medium, and high), or should it be weighed and have a strict criteria for each level (leaving most storms as low, less as mid, and only a few as high)? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very low fishpinners below Cat 4 Low Fishipers of Cat. 4 or average Cat.5 (trudy an expaction) Storms that make that do not make landfall or storms that cause low impact Mid storms that cross the international dateline other 4 and 5's and killed sevral people High Record holder (example Ioke) Top cstphones This. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Hink weve got to do it on a basin by basin basis as if you say for example 20 storms is high then you will have every WPAC season at high or above Jason Rees (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That might be nice, if we could do it without introducing systemic bias or POV, which might be possible.
On a similar topic, why are we using "Very low" importance? Articles tagged with that are not being picked up by the WP:1.0 bot, and the classification gives minimal benefit at best. (Seriously, folks, the distinction between "low importance" and "Very low importance" is meaningless at best. Both say that the article is not one of our priorities, yet we still work on them because they're low-hanging fruit.) I have half a mind of TFD'ing the thing unless a very good reason for its existence is given (and "low" is already the bottom of the barrel...). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Shall we merge the very-low importance back with low? You're right, we shouldn't be so pedantic about the importance, particularly for the generally unimportant ones. I'm fine with that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with it too. It sounded like a good idea (though it wasn't my idea), but there's really not enough distinction between Low and Very-low. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else opposed? If not (and before this gets archived), we should make the transition within the next week or so (to avoid any lasting damage). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We can do this over the Thanksgiving break. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed all of the very-low importance once back to just low. I'm not sure of the rest of the changes that have to be made, though. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think very-low is abolished completely now (everything reverted/deleted that made it work). If no one minds, I'll archive this section. It appears importance will just be fought on the individual pages. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Epac Guidelines

I have an idea for the guidelines:

The WikiProject Tropical Cyclones East Pacific Basin Article Creation Guidelines.
Type Standard
Season Articles 2 Months Before season starts
Hurricanes dissipated and hits land Only if major damage, deaths or retirement occurs.
Hurricanes active and looks to hit land Only if major damage, deaths or retirement is likely to occur.
Hurricane is active and a major hurricane Create if there are enough sources - at least 3.
Hurricane was rare and is active Do not publish yet
Hurricane was rare and is dead Only if the cyclone did something unusual, or broke a record and has more than 3 sources cited..... if not - do not publish yet
Hurricane has good sources available and a good write up is very possible Only if the article would be well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced..... if not - do not publish yet
Any of the above but seasons article's section is not well developed As per Wikipedia:SPINOUT
Was/IS a 'fishspinner' Only if you can cite up to 4 sources... if not - needs to be at C or Start (depending on debate) class within 3 weeks of creation.

Now with a few edits this could be good any suggestions... if not I would request a poll for it. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So a category 2 fish storm in the Pacific can't have an article but a 12 hour tropical storm in the middle of the Atlantic can? -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Also we would need the season article from January 1 not March 15 in case of any Zita's (ie Year Crossovers) and any Pre season storms Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If the article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced, every named storm can get an article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Jason... thats what I meant.... Julian... I agree... - added your "suggestion".... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
How do we create a poll for it? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for a poll. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing - Wikipedia:SPINOUT. All storm articles are split from season or basin articles. They summary sections should be completely developed in the season article - preferably before the storm article is created.Potapych (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Go back to the Guild lines I put.v These are more correct and better. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow... there aload of rubbish. What do we think then? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
it is not rubbish one bit. To test try to write up Tropical Storm Dillia (1995)Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Dillia isn't even the name of a storm.Potapych (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Acctully i would agree with LTFC on your guidlines as they are unclear. Also i suppourt LTFCs guidlines as they look pretty decent, and with a little bit of rewording they can be rolled out worldwide. (eg: Season articles should be made 2 Months before the TC Year starts (ie: November & May)) Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Potapych - he meant Dalila from 1995 and.... Only one source there... so it would not require a article. However Hurricane Barbara from 1995 requires one. As it was a major hurricane and I count 4 sources on the main season page. Jason - thanks, although I'm not sure about the re-wording, I can see the Hurricane is active and a major hurricane's description changed to this "Create if there are enough sources - Not 1, even the White House requires 3 sources before claiming anything." Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Fishspinners can supotr articles. It is simple.

Only if the article is fully referenced and comprehensive to some extent. A poor article is going to be merged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Then acrrording to the standers this is what we do.

Standards.
Type Standard
Bud keep
Erick keep
Boris keep

Leave Message orYellow Evan home

I am strongly against any set it stone guidelines. If someone writes a really great article on a storm, but it gets put on AFD because it goes against some "guideline", then that is rediculous. I'm fine with general guidelines, but not "tropical storm lasting more than 72 hours but less than 144 that formed on a Tuesday in a leap year must be deleted" guidelines. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They are general Guidlines.... also.... it don't have to be rare.... the guidlines say "Only if major damage,deaths or retirement occurs OR if it can cite 3 sources." And BTW I would mind if Yellow Evan is kept out of this discussion. He just spammed my talk page..... ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited the guidelines somewhat.... there abit more relaxed. ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Why cannot we do articles for EVERY storm. Whats wrong with that and what to hear nonsense. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there is not enough information on each and evrey storm - For example take Tropical Disturbance 10F off 2006-07 - There is not going to be an article because it was a very short lived system also we did not even monitor it at the time. Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


I do not think so look at Tropical Storm Erick (2007)Leave Message orYellow Evan home
Yes there is enough infomation on Erick to justify an article but there is just not enough information on Tropical disturbance 10F of 2006-07 or Tropical Depression Gener to justify an article. Jason Rees (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

try to write an EPAC fishspinner here.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been difficult to follow per the significant typos/grammar/indentation issues with some of the responses, so I'll just give you all my opinion and what our project's history has been on this topic. This discussion appears to be a rehash of a discussion that occurred in the project back in 2005 and 2006 when people started writing articles on every storm in the Atlantic Basin. Some of the most active/productive members were initially opposed to this, particularly the fish storms (older slang for your fishspinner terminology) but once people produced decent articles on these systems, the discussion generally melted away. Personally, I think C class is too harsh...Start class is more appropriate at first if someone wants to create an article on a system. If you all want to fix the stub problem within the project, consider merging the content of the stub storm articles back into the season articles and replace them with redirects, as long as they were not important cyclones (i.e., retired for meteorological purposes.) If the stubs ARE the season articles, then expand them out. The season articles for all basins are begging for attention, for those looking for something to do. By the way, I don't think it's a good idea for have different criteria in the different basins...that could be interpreted as POV. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooof

How long is it going to be until I actually create a storm article? First Fausto, and now Norbert, and Yellow Evan beat me to both. I'm very interested in tropical cyclones, don't get me wrong, but if I'm going to be beaten to every storm article I plan, I don't see what my purpose in this project is. Hurricanehink, an administrator, has complimented me on my writing. I'd probably be a great help to the project if someone would actually let me. Dylan620 Life story 18:58 UTC October 8, 2008

No one owns the articles. Any article could be improved in some way. Just because you didn't start them doesn't mean you can't make them great. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You don't need to be the one to create an article to contribute to this project. You can write more complex/complete content than the one already there; for example Tropical Storm Marco (2008) needs more in the storm history section. -- RattleMan 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Dylan: Since we have started to fall behind with the 2008 PTS again so if you wanted you could help out there also if you just put a note on the season talk page saying that you have a sandbox article started on the perticular storm then people should respect it and not do an article. Jason Rees

It is a real shame that Yellow Evan keeps creating awful messes (which I hesitate to call "articles"), especially when it is preventing talented writers like Dylan620 from creating them. Something has to be done. Plasticup T/C 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now now. No personal attacks. We've shed some good and/or productive people from this project due to personal attacks over the years. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I can't think of a single storm article I've created. Okay I don't know what that point is supposed to mean...but I don't think I'm useless :). Dylan, why don't you try to fix Hurricane Janet, that storm needs some love. — jdorje (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Even though it's been redirected now, I created the Tropical Storm Odile (2008) article. Yellow Evan has given me some ideas for articles (Hurricane Jova (2005), Hurricane Boris (1996), Tropical Storm Andres (1997), and Hurricane Fausto (1996)), and I do accept the suggestions I have received from Jdorje, Jason Rees, RattleMan, Plasticup, and Titoxd. I have a plan: leave Rene in the Atlantic to me, once he pops up (which is likely, considering the 'P' storm is imminent when we're halfway through October). I'll try my best to pump out a decent article, at least B-class or GA-class (a suitable goal for a Wikipedian new as me). I also have a few disambiguation pages in stock; contact me on my talk page if you think my disambiguation page for tropical cyclones named Percy is ready. I'll use as much free time as I can to edit, and improve, any article I find needs improvement, and in any way I can. Dylan620 Life story 21:39 UTC October 14, 2008

Okay, since TD Sixteen is unlikely to become a tropical storm now, leave the next storm in the Atlantic (presumably Paloma) to me; since when did tropical depressions become named storms over land, especially over extremely mountainous countries like Honduras? Oh, and I still promise to try to make a decent (B-class or GA-class) article, no matter how notable or non-notable Paloma is (an exception, though, will be if Paloma is a powerful hurricane heading my way; I'll probably spend more time evacuating than contributing to the article). Lounge with Dylan620 today! 00:56 UTC October 16, 2008

Help!

Could someone delete the redirect for 1966 Pacific hurricane season? --Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create an article under that name, just edit this. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

2009

I am starting sandboxes that will be published in April '09!

and

feel free to edit, But Someone better not move to mainspace until April, got it!

Sorry, just had to do that. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Three Things
  • Dont forget the NIO
  • The 2009 NIO & PTS will be required January 1 so i would move them some time in December
  • I will also help you write them

Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the 2009 season already? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
because the 2009 WPAC and NIO seasons kick off in about 75 days time Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, those are fine, but the Atl and EPac seasons are quite a while off yet... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Info would be needed December 9.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to wait until April. WPac season starts on Jan 1 plus you have seasonal forcasts for the Atlantic come out in December. The article could be created now for all I care. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User Review

Admins - please don't kill me for this... but lately the quality of articles written by editors has well... dropped. What I think the project needs is a User Review. It would be based on a 3 strike system. Every month we nominate someone to review all users edits that involve WPTC. If they are not so good... or they have been vandalizing ET AL... they get 1 strike.... each year it would be checked. After a year the strikes get (sorry for the pun) "struck" off. However if anyone does really bad work and is awful. They get 2 strikes - they would wear off after 2 years. Anyone agree? Comments? Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: 0 Oppose: 2 Neutral: 0 Comments: 2

Comments

Any ideas or agreeals? Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the proposal in a nutshell? I don't understand most of the above text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No - This would discourage particpants & we have enough problems trying to keep up to date evreywhere outside the atlantic Jason Rees (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason to discourage people who want to contribute. Either help them with their writing, or correct their errors. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Max and Otis (2005) up for GA

These articles need some serious editing/improvement to get to GA, especially Otis. I only had the heart to write the GA review for Otis, which was a difficult review, since so much improvement was needed. I did what I could to bring Max up to C class today. So much is needed to be improved within a week that I fear Otis won't reach GA. Max, on the other hand, has some promise. To all in the project, please review the GA criteria carefully before submitting articles for GA. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask someone else to rewie a GA.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by rewie? You mean a review, rewrite, or improve the articles to GA for you? As the person who proposed them, it is primarily up to you to improve them yourself. I was being helpful with Max, so now I can't review it since I've been significantly involved in the editing process. Someone else will get to it...I've found that articles up for GA are reviewed a bit quicker than they were a few months ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

importance for EPAC storms

Why does every EPAC storm with an article get low importance? It happened with Ekeka, Alma, Boris, and Lowell. That is more rare than Tropical Storm Zeta. Alma was a crossover. Boris caused heavy rain well inland. Same with Lowell. kathleen really should be Top to someone that lives in that area.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All eastern Pacific storms shouldn't be low importance. Storms which fit land like Alma, Boris, and Lowell should probably be mid class. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That would actually change the whole ratings system. Mid class is filled with retired storms and storms with far larger impacts than any of those. Alma, Boris, and Lowell are not memorable. Since most EPAC storms move away from land, there will be few important articles from that basin. I think keeping most at low importance is reasonable. I guarantee those articles will be maintained as much as Hurricane Adrian (2005) which has been sitting with that tag for years.Potapych (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

what about Ekeka. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know offhand. I know its intensity for January was unusual for a northern hemisphere basin. Low or mid. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

here are the guidelines

Low - storms not impacting land that aren't otherwise notable. Examples: Ingrid, Jerry, Karen, Melissa Medium - storms that had low impact that someone somewhere might care about. Maybe they even killed someone or did some damage. Examples: Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Erin (could be high), Gabrielle, Humberto, Lorenzo, Ten High - storms with a significant effect on land, doing significant damage or killing a reasonable number of people. Examples: Noel, Olga (could be medium) Top - storms doing catastrophic damage or killing many people. Examples: Dean, Felix (could be medium). Alma Mid. Boris Low High Lowell. Top Kathleen. Mid Ekeka.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

Something is not right on my talk page. It is not going through when I type. It is also in greenish brown. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the page is so enormous. You keep writing articles there every time you get banned, which makes your talk page many times larger than normal. You have also never archived content, unless you count those times that you deleted your user-warnings. I suggest creating an archive sub-page at User talk:Yellow Evan/Archive 1 and moving old discussion there. Plasticup T/C 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No. The size of the page doesn't matter. We have a user in the German WP who used to have a talk page larger than one mega byte and despite long loading times and slow editing that size was still operating as usual. Actually the maximum expanded size for any page is 2 MB HTML code. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Large pages do not update their server cache as quickly or as easily, which is why new additions to his page is not displaying new changes. Plasticup T/C 12:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gudlines for EPAC storms

We keep on arguing about this. Why cannot we do articles for every storm in the EPAC? Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We can. They just have to meet project standards in order to exist. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Most storms in the eastern Pacific are non-notable. Creating articles of very limited interest that are poorly written and researched is beyond the point of an encyclopedia. Why do we need hundreds or articles that no one is interested in maintaining? If the subject is of your interest, then create it. But first, check your spelling, your grammar, your sources, and do your research. You don't seem to be doing any of that. If you were, you wouldn't enjoy spending the amount of time needed to meet those requirements. Potapych (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing what I can to fix up the articles he's been making but school and the absurd amount of poor articles that keep being made are impossible to keep up with. I'm just going to go with merging any of them that are proposed to be merged until I finish working on the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. All of his "created articles" usually are just copies of the information on the main article, then left alone until a merging war takes place.
We're all giving advice and being ignored so I'm sure I'm not the only who is aggravated by all of this mess. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
All we can do is help new people to the project. If they're willing to create articles, fine. It may not be preferable for some people to correct other's mistakes, but this is wikipedia, and it's par for the course. We have had a couple of the most active editors who write with a reasonable writing style create a whole host of stub/start articles (all necessary, but still stubs/starts,) and no one's been getting on their back to finish the hundreds of articles they started. I've been steadily trying to improve all the articles I've significantly edited or started since 2006 to GA class for quite some time now, but we have hundreds of articles and only so much time each to fix articles. Everyone has their limits. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

NHC breakpoints

I am taking the list of NHC breakpoints and arranging them into a table. Then I am going to make sure that every city/town/hamlet on the list has an article, which should remove a lot of redlinks from our TC articles. Join in, there's enough for everyone! Plasticup T/C 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A project

If I get time, I'll try to work on this. If anyone's interested in working on it too, 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season has TONS of information available now. There's lots of interest in some of the related articles (Gonus, Sidr, Yemyin, Akash). This would make a good featured topic.Potapych (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WMO files

I just noticed there was a big purge of WMO documents that were extremely useful to some of these articles. They must've deleted the annual summaries, final reports, and old operation manuals within the last couple of months.Potapych (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we know which ones at all? Jason Rees (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I linked a bunch of them in some of the season articles, so there should at lease be file names for most. I can't find anything in the normal archiving places, however.Potapych (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The only WMO file thats not working that i can see on the current storm articles is the SWIO TCOP 06, which i presume has been taken down as they have just revised it last week Jason Rees (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Look for some of the older ones. They had descriptions and BTs for all tropical cyclones for the years 2000 and 2001, for example. Those are gone.Potapych (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they only reorganized their server? Maybe Google with using the doc's name will refind the pages, maybe www.webarchive.org has those pages? --Matthiasb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Topic input

Hi! I was working on setting up a Tropical cyclone topic but I got stuck on how to setup the topic. Any input about (i) what definitely needs to be in, and (ii) what should but not really necessary, would be really appreciated. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the link to the SSHS. As the SSHS is not so important when youve got an article about the scales next to it. Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline problems

I'm having trouble with the timeline images. Whenever I try to make one or add a link to one, the image either shows up as a question mark box or there is no text in it. Is anyone else having this problem? Or does someone know how to fix this? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

the question mark is easily solved by adding/removing a line before the </timeline...> paramater, However the text not showing up is an issue thats been discovered today and myself & User:RattleMan have been trying to fix this evening but we have discovered that its an issue project wide so we have reported it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Jason Rees (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale

Have we ever disscussed what we call it?? - I ask because when i am doing articles at the minute i am unsure in what to call it. Jason Rees (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The NHC says it is called "Cyclone Severity Categories", but the best the current BOM site gives is Tropical Cyclone Category System". Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
RSMC Nadi who also use it call it the "Australian and South Pacific Category System" so maybe we should call it something like the Australian and South Pacific Tropical Cyclone Category Scale"

Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone done a web search to see which title is used more often of the two? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to the best of my knowledge so ill start doing one now Jason Rees (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a few values that are off. I would use BoM as the source[1] because I have seen other websites using a scale that is slightly different (including Nadi's). Look inside {{Infobox Hurricane Small}} if you want to see the values in knots.Potapych (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Depression tracks online

The CLIQR database online lists real-time tropical depression designations for systems in both the Atlantic and eastern Pacific hurricane basins as names within the file, and has tracks, if someone wants to generate the tracks for the season pages. This database is still in the process of being created/updated, and is being done so with the knowledge and occasional feedback of the National Hurricane Center. It will probably be some years before the numbering/designation dilemna is sorted out in the 1970s and 1980s, but at least we have most of their tracks. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the track generator? I know most of the recent ones have been done by hand. Potapych (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ask Nilfanion. He's the only one who has gotten it to reliably work... or ask Jdorje to make a makefile for SVN, so it is easier to install. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very-low-importance

See Category:Very-low-importance Tropical cyclone articles; I tried it on Talk:Tropical Storm Erick (2007). Seems like a good idea for storms like Erick, Lee 05, and Elida 08. Thoughts before I start applying it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It Seems good to me - but how woul we apply it over the seven basins that we have ? Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured it would be limited to storms that never made landfall, and those like Tropical Depression Seven (2003) that only caused a few rain showers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we restrict it to fish-spinners below Cat 3? Plasticup T/C 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
How about this. Very low for storms that don't make landfal, and low for all storms that make landfall and do little-none damage--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 19:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It does help clarify things a bit more. I think that storms that cause at least some kind of impact should get low importance, and those that caused no impact whatsoever should get very-low importance. So TD 7 (2003) would remain low-importance and Erick (2007) would keep it's very low-importance. (Third attempt to post this comment) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd think tropical cyclones below hurricane strength, which produce no impacts on land or sea would fit this category, should it be used. Any impact would jump a system up to low or mid, depending upon magnitude. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Any impact at all and I agree it should be at least Low Plasticup T/C 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful and make sure any non-landfalling systems which produce meteorological records, such as strength, longevity, and time of occurrence (such as out of season developments or storms which formed in unusual locations) are above this new very low category. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

True, what about major hurricanes/cyclones (Cat:3 or higher) that cause no impact? Should they be given very-low importance (save Cat:5's which I think are automatically low or mid) or low importance? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Major hurricane strength tropical cyclones should probably be ranked at least low or mid. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the basin right? Low class for the WPAC major typhoons (save cat:5 again) seems reasonable since there are numerous ones every year, but other basins mid-class for cat:4-5. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Super Typhoons should be taken on a case by case basis as this year we have only had 2 where as the Atlantic has had 4 Major Hurricanes so farJason Rees (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary, but some are getting mixed in the wrong categories. I think people are weighing a lot of the post-tropical effects too heavily. Stan is a perfect example of this disparity. It was retired, it's Mid-class, but most of the damage was caused by rainbands associated with the monsoon it developed in. Ignacio (2003) is in the same category because of its after effects, but it is dwarfed by Stan using the same consideration. It's important to note that Ignacio and Marty weren't retired, though they affected the same country that Stan did. Potapych (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about storms like Hurricane Liza (1968), Hurricane Elida (2008), and Hurricane Boris (2008). They should be Low not very low. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Liza qualifies for Low-importance because it had some impact, Elida and boris are very-low class because there was no impact, neither of them were out of season, and neither of them were major hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Elida was berfily forcasted to hit at 8 AM PDT July 18. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But there was no impact, it was just a brief forecast. Unless there is definite impact, as in a landfall, injuries, damage, or fatalities, or is a major hurricane, the article will be rated very-low importance unless otherwise stated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure but the rements may have impacted Hawaii. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't noted in the TCR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Boris? I said it definded weakening predictions, the first Tropical Cyclone in June since Tropical Storm Cavin] in 2005. Low but not very low. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing special. Storms defy weakening predictions all the time in the eastern Pacific. Breaking a "dry spell" in terms of storms, unless it's a really long time isn't that notable. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This one did it for three and a half days hernan did it one and a half days. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also that dry spell uis vey rare. Espissaly how active 2006 was. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing big, Boris just isn't a notable storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yellow Evan, stop disrupting this discussion. We are talking about the criteria in general, not specifically as it applies to a single storm. Take this argument to the article's talk page. Plasticup T/C 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to be rude for disagreeing with you, but I think it is better we keep it here so that other users can help explain the specifications of the new importance level, since it's a very thin margin between very-low and low importance Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For systems staying at sea, the number of storms similar to one could also be helpful in importance decisions. Consider Atlantic hurricanes that die in the central Atlantic "hurricane graveyard". The fact that that happens often enough to be "routine" says that most of those systems ought to be low or very-low in importance. Basically, "routine" systems should be "routinely" low or very low. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where the benefit of this classification lies, as it will just make a few headaches while cross-referencing our scale's importance with the 1.0 importance scale. I see {{Low-Importance}} as more of a catch-all, so I'm not really sure we need this category. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much use for it either. Potapych (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's to establish an importance level for bottom of the barrel. I think I found a solution, in that I just changed the category to be part of low-importance TC articles. That way, it'll still reflect the WP wide importance scale, but we'll just have a sub-cat for one of the levels. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
But then, what's next? {{Minimal-Importance}}? {{Infinitesimal-Importance}}? This level of granularity is simply not needed... Low-importance articles are not Mid-importance, High-importance, or Top-importance... that seems more than sufficient for me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Alma-Arthur

There seems to be a disagreement if Tropical Storm Alma-Arthur should exist as a separate article. I think it has since this storm was the first example of a crossover tropical cyclone between the two oceans since Cesar-Douglas in 1996. It's probably the only crossover tropical cyclone to be a Tropical Storm. Please raise your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of their Tropical Cyclone Reports state that they were separate systems. The low pressure center of Alma dissipated over the mountains of central america. However, the moisture from the storm contributed to the formation of Arthur. They should remain in their own separate articles unless a re-analysis by NOAA shows otherwise. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The circulation dissipated between the storms. The remnants contributed to Arthur, but it was not the same system. No authoritative source says that it was. Plasticup T/C 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Also Douglas was a continuation of Ceaser just renamed due to the policy at the time where as Alma would off retained its name had it off gone in to the atlantic as a TD or higher Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC) The best thing would be to make that a sort of "quasidisambiguation" page, basically serving as a link to the seperate articles, perhaps with a brief statement saying why Alma and Arthur weren't the same system. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Alma and Arthur weren't directly the same systems. Alma's remnants contributed to the formation of Arthur. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Should the article have a link to the section in Tropical cyclone naming? Potapych (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the TPC surface analysis series, it was indeed the same area of low pressure. Was it the same well-defined tropical cyclone? No. But that's a narrow distinction that wouldn't have been made 10+ years ago, though the reasonable doubt is likely probably reason enough to separate the systems into two articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we have separate articles. I also think we need this article as well as a connecting link between the other two. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That would basically be a double article. A note in both article stating the small connection is all that is needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys - It must be Alma and Arthur having seprate articles... as we would be contradicting references and that would mean we'd be in the firing line for our massive WP to be killed. Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Next Seasons Articles

Hiya, I suggest we begin making a lee-way on Next seasons "Season Articles" as once we have done those we can focus on getting the other articles up to standard and try and catch up on the WPAC.

I have created and nearly finished 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itfc%2Bcanes%3Dme/sandbox/2009_atlantic_hurricane_season

Any Volunteers for the others?

Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments for NSO

I already made the sandboxes a month ago, see top or in the last archive.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Ive just moved 2009 NIO from Elenas sandbox Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Jason... whats NIO and sorry elena... but can I make the atlantic one - mines more developed than elena (or kirk)? Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 21:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
LTFC - The NIO stands for the North Indian Ocean Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, your atlantic is well developed but can you use my pacific page.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 21:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) or Elena85
Elena - of course! and Jason.. my name is ITFC and thanks also... Elena why did you change your name? I liked it like it was originally... Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I put up a mention on the project page.... see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#New_Season_Articles Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that ITFC - I have also rephrased your entry on the Tasks page as both the NIO & the WPAC kick off Jan 1
Its ok Jason... and thanks - I wasn't thinking straight at the time - I have been on caffeine power over the last 5 days. Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 10:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Removing Redirects

I have an article coming up and is nearly created, but the storm article redirects somewhere. How do i rectify this so i can move the nearly created article? User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

youve got two choices - If you are the Sole contributer then you can just delete the redirect and then C&P the article OR if youre then you need to ask an adminstrator to do it.Jason Rees (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the second option.... TY jason.. however seeing as some admins are off for a bit.. who are the admins here? User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm free to help out, when you're ready. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am already ready... although I'm not sure if the article will be deleted or not. Article located at: User:Itfc+canes=me/sandbox/Tropical_Storm_Alvin_(2007)#Storm_History (move talk page too.) User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Julian... I may call upon you for next seasons article. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Lowell (2008)

Last night I pout this article up to merge. This morning add added the info to the merged article and no it keep getting reverted it joined with Ike and they should be some note about it effects. Mitch and Cyclonebiskit reverted it. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox,Hurricane Fausto (2002),Hurricane Hernan (2008) , Tropical Storm Dora (2005) or Tropical Storm Norman (2000) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The remnants of Lowell did, indeed, join with Ike as a minor system. However, the impact was related to Ike, and saying otherwise is factually incorrect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They should be a note about its impact too although it was not realted. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox,Hurricane Fausto (2002),Hurricane Hernan (2008) , Tropical Storm Dora (2005) or Tropical Storm Norman (2000) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Emilia (1994) upgrade

I think the NHC has officially upgraded Emilia to a Category Five, or at least HURDAT has. I just checked the Unisys site for 1994, and it has Emilia briefly reaching cat:5 with winds of 160mph. Trackfile. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the Emilia article to reflect this information. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Which also means that the track map needs to be updated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hernan (2008)

This is now driving me crazy, and why does this keep getting reverted and know its been protected. It is not my fault I was trying to get it featured? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It will do that until the protect is lifted on November 5. This was my fault :( we have to communicate better before making edits next time. However, according the the FAC review, there is not much that needed to be changed with the article. That's why I'm trying to keep it the way it is. Until this protect is lifted, we can't nominate the article, and once it is lifted, it's best to wait a little while to nominate it, just to let things settle down with it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That why I was did those edits in the first place to finish the tasks. I would like an an administrator to answer this. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Read over the comments from the FAC, the only recommendation was some non-NHC sources. After your short ban was put in place, I contacted SandyGeorgia to see if the article could be kept, obviously the answer was a no, but the thing that would help next time around was a variety of sources, which is hard for a fish storm. I did find two and added them, there were a few others but they were very repetitive. As you could tell, there was some support for the article. I was planning on adding a statistics part to the article, for the ACE note to make that last section a little bigger since it is rather tiny. We can get this protect lifted soon though. I'm going to request to have the article unprotected, but I need you to help me because we were the only two involved in this. After it's lifted and the section is added, I'll nominate it for FA because if you nominate it, I can't really support it because I'm a main contributer. Sorry for the annoyance. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But in some ACE in there and mabey some meteorological stats and forcasting in there for sure. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Go there and scroll down to the requests for unprotection section, put your thoughts on why the article shouldn't be protected below mine so hopefully we can clear this up quickly :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs

Are IPs lacking accounts allowed to join the project? Just asking. --Dylan620 (Homeyadda yadda yaddaOoooohh!) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I Wouldnt off thought so as their IP Addresses change frequently but i am not sure. Jason Rees (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Membership" does not come with any special rights or privileges; it is just an informal way of keeping track of the regular editors. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be allowed to "join", although if IPs choose not to join it should make no difference to how they are treated. Plasticup T/C 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
IP's are pretty much just users without names and some rights that go with a name. But there's no barrier to them contributing if they want. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: What they said. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2006 Pacific hurricane season

I have been working on 2006 PHS whit is rewrite and the season Impact and I also need some help so we can get a FT. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Odile (2008)

Why was this merged? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is of insufficient length. If you want to have the article un-merged, work on it in a sandbox until it is long enough and supplies enough information to support a separate article. Until then, the article remains merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So was Lowell. Its quality not quantity i agree it could be expanded a little but no enough to be merged. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 22:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mergeable existing pages

Hurricane Lane (2000)

Hurricane Hernan (2008)

Hurricane Boris (2008)

Hurricane Boris (1990)

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Hurricane Otis (2005)

Tropical storm Norman (2000)

Tropical Storm Lowell (2008)

Tropical Storm Kirsten (1966)

Hurricane Max (2005)

Tropical Storm Odile (2008)

Tropical Storm Elida (1996)

Tropical Depression Seventeen-E (2008)

Tropical Storm Karina (2008)

We have a lot of merge candidates. Someone keeps merging Odile when i am trying to make a point. Any thoughts? Make a list of your candites. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles are merged when they lack sufficient information or referencing to support an article. Everything else is kept, regardless of what point you are trying to make. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Make your list, then what should be merge what what should not. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Also, please indent your talk page comments to keep the conversation easy to read. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Then we all know who wants to merge what. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yellow Evan, we've tried to merge plenty of your articles that fail to meet project standards, but you insist on reverting without any improvements. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Your strating to get it now. I am not planing to merge anything. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Otis. I'm working on the 2005 Pacific hurricane season series. I'll get to Otis eventually, but having it there will make it easier. Also, Evan, some article just have to be merged because they don't give any extra info on it. Adding a sentence or two doesn't help, it has to be a full article which requires hours of research and typing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
That means keep Max too. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't merge another one of those.... I would like Seventeen back.. Or I am so rollbacking and giving Yellow EVAN a level 1. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 18:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Track image request

Before GACing the 1983 Pacific typhoon season, I need someone with the knowledge to create the tracks of the two TDs located within the HKO report for early October and late November. Any help here is appreciated, even if it is to instruct me as to how to do it. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, despite I just take the world map and use a little math to figure out where to place the dot on the map, using GIMP. -Ramisses (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. One TD track is needed for the 1981 Pacific typhoon season, and we can GAC that puppy as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Also done. -Ramisses (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Australian cyclone season articles

In some of the past Australian cyclone season articles (e.h. 1999-2000) is mentioned

Each Australian Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre (Perth, Darwin, and Brisbane) maintains a list of names arranged alphabetically and alternating male and female.

however since now they maintain only one list for Perth, Darwin and Brisbane together the statement should be corrected to reflect that the statement was correct in the past seasons. Please one do this because if I did it myself I certainly would include a mess of grammar. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, See 2008-09 Australian region cyclone season, & the BoM section for details Jason Rees (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

Does anyone know how to get the images from [2]] to wikipedia?--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. Save the Image you want on your desktop or somewhere else on your pc
  2. Go to Wikipedia Commons and upload it there
  3. create a link to it on the page where you want it Jason Rees (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for every storm

for the am millionth time why cant we do articles for every storm in the EPAC? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We can. For the millionth time, they just have to be well-written and be as comprehensive as possible/necessary. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
(beaten to the post by Hink) We can make them. However, since you haven't been completely focused on improving your writing, most of the articles you create aren't good enough in quality to be kept. As I've said before, you have good intent with this, but you lack the ability to back this up. I do believe that you will be able to write well enough soon that the articles can start being kept. That doesn't mean create massive amounts of articles and if any get merged you un-merge them. Focus on quality not quantity. If you're ever unsure about what to do or how to do something, just ask Juliancolton since he has adopted you. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently 2008 needs Fausto, Odile, Lowell and, Genvieve And 2006 needs Hector and Kristy
Wait for the TCRs for Fausto, Odile, Lowell and, Genvieve to come out before articles are made Jason Rees (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I will make Kristy soon.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Daw, I guess that leaves me with...Hector. Haha, just messing, I'll get to Hector soon also. Might work on the depressions first, not sure yet. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have Hector in a sandbox right now. Mabey do Two-E. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yellow Evan, maybe you should let Cyclonebiskit do Hector, he writes excellent articles.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I checked your sandboxes and I couldn't find one that had Hector in it. Either way, I'll let you do Hector. Hurricane articles aren't as fun to type as minor storms that didn't hit land (IMO). Save Two-E did hit land and drop 26 inches of rain, but that's besides the point ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is at User:Yellow Evan/hurricane Hector. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 23:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

UTC and EST/AST

There seems to be controversy in the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season article on the dissipation date of Hurricane Paloma. Going by the local time, it was 10pm on November 9, however, going by UTC it dissipated on November 10. I'm not sure if there is a preferred time but if there is, it needs to be more clearly stated so things like this don't continue. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

UTC should be used in the infobox in my viewJason Rees (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. It should assume UTC. If local time is used, the writing should specifically mention it, but that's probably too much to put into an infobox. Potapych (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Timelines + Bolding

I have now removed all the bolding from the Timelines Jason Rees (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2008–09 South Pacific cyclone season – cyclones or hurricanes?

Which term is the right one for storms in the RSMC Nadi area? According to their website they issue

  • Gale warning if sustained winds over 33 knots and up to 47 knots (40% higher gusts) are expected within the next 24 hours.
  • Storm Warning if sustained winds are expected to range between 48 and 63 knots (40-50% higher gusts) in the area within the next 24 hours.
  • Hurricane warning if sustained winds over 63 knots (50% higher gusts) are expected in the area within the next 24 hours.

However, in their TC summary they call it Tropical Cyclone Season but also the New Zealand National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research f. ex. calls Guba a hurricane. Any ideas? --Matthiasb (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cyclone" is the correct term for the South Pacific. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
For consistency, I'd go with tropical cyclone. Both are correct, though. They use the term 'hurricane' a lot. Potapych (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Cyclone is the offical term ie Cyclone Guba. But within their Special weather Bulitens/marine they use Hurricane storm and gale force warnings. [3] Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone realize what is hapening

This is acting weird, why are they so many storms (land impacting) that dont have articles Tara killed 500 in Mexiaco. Flossie is a stub folks, i wishes Flossie was a FA. Same with Tico. There is may storms that need articles. From the top my head there is Aridan 99, Jova 05, Estelle 84, Fausto 96, Boris 96, Trudy 90, Alma 90, Virgil 92, Hali 92, Yolanda 92, Hillary 05, Wene 00, Upana 00, Kristy 06, Olivia 94, Howard 04, Estelle 86, Doreen 77, Madeline 76, Annette 76, Katrina 67, Simone 68. Instead, we are try to do the 2006 PHS. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Focus on one thing at a time. Don't go off and try do work on so many articles focus on one, improve it to GA (which IMO is the base rating most articles should get to) then move on to the next one. If you want to get an article to FA, you have to spend a lot of time on it. Especially since the FAC can take over a month to close. For now though, keep up with advice Juliancolton is giving you. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
When you try to create or improve a number of articles at once, it will take longer for any one of them to reach GA/FA. When I started in the project almost 3 years ago, I tried to elevate every article within the met and TC projects from Stub to Start, then Start to B. It seemed like every time I raised an article from Stub to B class, someone had created a new stub! It's best to concentrate on a few articles at a time, upgrade them to GA systematically, and then figure out if you want to go through the trauma of FAC. If not, keep improving articles to GA, a few at a time. Any more than 5 article improvements at any given time will stretch your time/resources too thin. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The EPAC divise of the project has ''''a'' stub thats Hurricane Tico (1983) Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he's pointing out that the East Pacific only has one Stub-Class storm article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. There are others though. Hurricane Boris (2008) is a stub. There are also several seasons which are stubs. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
One could say many season articles, regardless of basin, are at Stub class. The good news is that people have taken a new interest in their improvement over the past several months. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed more people are taking an intrest with the season artciles for example i am currently doing up 2007-08 SPac Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I am very annoyed about the seasons to i will improve Boris in a second. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Retired Storms & their replacements

Last night my article on Cyclone Elisa (2008) had its GA review and the only thing that was brought up was about the name Esau being retired after the 1991-92 SPac season and Elisa replacing it. As i could not find a source that said Esau was replaced with Elisa i had to remove it from the article. When i came on this afternoon to Wiki i saw that the reviewer seemed to be dissapointed that i had to take out so my question is does anyone know of any source that specfically says that Elisa replaced Esau? Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, was it retired or just not used anymore? According to the FMS RSMC Nadi was created by the forty-seventh session of the WMO Executive Council in 1995, what certainly spawned new names lists. Who was responsible for that area before or who named cyclones back then? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Esau was retired as the TCOP for the area confirms. As for who names them RSMC Nadi named them in a simular way to how the CPHC named storms before it became a RSMC.
From the 1992 ATCR (JTWC) Chapter 4
"NOTE: Names of Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones are given by the Regional Warning Centers (Nadi, Brisbane, Darwin, Perth, Reunion and Mauritius) and are appended to JTWC Warnings, when available." Jason Rees (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging page format

I have an new idea for the project page format.

Tropical Storm Karina

Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Format for season articles

The first of the Pacific typhoon season articles appears complete enough to go through the GA process. Check out 1982 Pacific typhoon season and see what you think. The biggest question going forward is, "Do we need a complete summation of every TC in the lead, or a section thereafter, for the Pacific typhoon season series, or is a more general summary reasonable?" Thegreatdr (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm updating the infoboxes now with the newer version. I'm including the JMA wind speeds also. Also, as a note, It appears that Tropical Storms Tess and Val were the same storm. [4] I'll wait for ideas on this one before changing it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. JTWC didn't indicate this in their annual summary, and I think this is before JMA became the warning center for the WestPac. Meanwhile, I tried to create a timeline for the season, and it's not showing up. D'oh! Thegreatdr (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The timeline problem is still festering...I've been having the same problem too. I've also just finished updating the infoboxes Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the timeline so that it shows, but the text still wont appear. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A little while back, I tried contacting the author of the 2007 Pacific typhoon season timeline. At least it shows up now. Thanks for your help so far. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I have to go to class right now. But afterwards, I'll start working on a separate article for the timeline of the season to try and make this the (possibly) the first Good topic for the western pacific. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
For the intensities, most people don't use knots. It's best to convert it to mph with km/h in parenthesis. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been an agreed upon standard to use knots within the TC articles, with conversions to km/h, as mph aren't used in most tropical cyclone basins. Has this project standard changed? Even if it has, mph is an inappropriate unit for the western Pacific ocean. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was a consensus on that. Ah, right, only the NHC really uses mph, because the US has the completely different scale. Ok, that clears it up for me. Just out of curiosity, do you really work at the HPC? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we agreed to that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
We agreed to SI units outside the US (since it is the international standard,) with the exception of knots. I'll go look for it in the archives. I checked out my archives and the project archives, and apparently we haven't had this conversation before. I'll bring it up under a new header. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
One thing that does jump out at me is that their is are no sources from the NMHS (including JMA) which probbably should be added before becoming a GAJason Rees (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes.... also - we should have a complete summary of as many TC's we have storms for. Close season - is the best time to do this. I suggest we draft two teams - one on the older season restoration - including summarys of storms and another smaller team on the new season articles... EVERYONE would help each team though.... Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure I understand. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to be the one who puts the let down out, but this would be the second. I just saw the the 1939 Pacific typhoon season is rated GA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Isn't that something that 1939 made GA first? hehehehe Thegreatdr (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Why should have the stonger in the Infobox. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
1939 has a different format, though. This would be the first WPAC season GA with infoboxes! :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Correction Julian - It IS the first WPAC season GA with infoboxes! (lol) Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I really wish the GA reviews for season articles were consistent from season to season, because Julian's and Dana's suggestions for the 1983 Pacific typhoon season don't fit project standards in regards to season summaries. For example, in the 1982 Pacific typhoon season article, a storm-by-storm summary was insisted upon by the reviewer per the project standards, which I abided by and it was raised to GA (now there are 3 PTS GAs.) In the 1939 Pacific typhoon season article, it is a very brief summation (which was what we originally had for the 1982 Pacific typhoon season article before the review.) In the 5 season articles I've tried to raise to GA, in 4 cases the reviewers insisted upon a storm-by-storm review. What are the project standards? Is the main project page obsolete or not? In short, have the standards changed or not? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1939 should not really be compared, as there was such little information on those storms (lack of satellite, not to mention World War II preventing some data). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about 2002 Pacific hurricane season? Is that season summary enough, or is a storm by storm recounting the direction we should be taking for more recent seasons? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead should inclued the notable storm which it verys but it should be shorter if it is there is a season summary i think. the 2006 PHS should include almost ever storm on the other hand 2005 PHS should only mention a few. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are that the article should contain a detailed breakdown storm by storm and then the Lead should contain Notable events like the date of first storm & the date of the last storm and a comparision to when the season started ie NOV 1 for the SPAC/AUS Basins. Jason Rees (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Prominent units within TC articles: Imperial or SI?

After hink's recent response in the section above, and my search of my own talk archives and the first 12 of the project archives (time consuming,) it appears this problem hasn't been discussed yet. It has made sense the main units used in season and storm articles for the Western Hemisphere should have mph prominent over SI units, since the warning centers are based within the US, where imperial units are still commonly used. However, this is not true in the Eastern Hemisphere. I've been placing knots as the major unit for tropical cyclones in the Pacific typhoon season articles (since it is the most common nautical term), with convert templates shifting the values to km/h. Is this reasonable? I could see a real POV issue if we used mph in the Eastern Hemisphere, since the world outside the US has essentially embraced SI over imperial units. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where we decided it, but we have decided, somewhere or another, to use only mph and km/h (with mph used primarily for NHC and CPHC and the others getting km/h). Notice that the Infobox uses just the two units (knots don't show up). I believe the argument was that the public in general doesn't really know what a knot is - do any countries even use knots? For the Eastern Hemisphere, keep in mind that although it may seem biased, there is a huge percentage of people on WP that solely use mph; not having that unit would not be accessible. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That may be true of the American public, but what about the Caribbean countries which are British, French, and Dutch dependencies? Europe went SI back when we were supposed to, several decades ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the world uses km/h, quite obviously, which is what the articles are supposed to use outside of NHC/CPHC (or so I thought). We just use mph for NHC basins since that's what they use. I'll repeat what I said: given the large percentage of US users (who use mph), it would be inaccessible not to include mph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also there is a problem with the mph in many articles, mainly when the Template:Convert is used. The wind speeds publsihed by the NHC are commonly rounded by 5 knots. Therefor converted into mph the result should be rounded by five. When one is using now mph as a base for converting into km/h the output can be wrong. Following are some values and there verification of that wrong way of convertig wind speeds (I just hope I haven't make mistakes).

  • 30 kn -> 35 mph -> 55 km/h – okay
  • 60 kn -> 70 mph -> 110 km/h – okay
  • 90 kn -> 105 mph -> 170 km/h – wrong, should be 165 km/h
  • 120 kn -> 140 mph -> 225 km/h – wrong, should be 220 km/h
  • 150 kn -> 175 mph -> 280 km/h – okay
  • 75 kn -> 85 km/h -> 135 km/h – wrong, should be 140 km/h
  • 50 kn -> 60 mph -> 115 km/h – wrong, should be 110 km/h

So we must ever convert from the source data into the unit we need, i.e. knots directly into km/h and not via mph into km/h. Cocerning the use of mph in genereal I think to remember a discussion on one of the MOS pages some time ago. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest within the Eastern & Southern Western Hempishere i would rather use Knots and km/h as thats whats the "OFFICAL" agencys use. also whilst im not sure about this but isnt it minor Original Research when we use MPH in the Eastern Hempishere as it can not be sourced back to a Primary source.Jason Rees (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to remember where, but there are several articles that are of the format χ kt (γ mph; ζ km/h), which we could use in the eastern basins. You also mentioned one of the evils of {{convert}}, and why it should never be used. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that many people who review GA articles (myself included due to how often it has happened with me) insist upon the use of convert templates. Besides, with the convert template you don't need to worry about all those nbsps. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats the way i prefer to do them and i have been doing it that way untill Hink moaned at me for using knots earlier this week Jason Rees (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for moaning, but I really thought we had this agreed upon not to use knots. I believe the only articles we use all three are some of the season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh dont worry about it your forgiven - From memory Daman, Elisa, Fengshen and some of the other Wpac storms from this year have all 3 units Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Basin Crossers

I was having a look at the Infobox Hurricane. If we were to do an article for Tropical Cyclone Lee-Ariel or for Tropical Cyclone Bertie-Alvin we would either have to loose one of the centers Scales or have two infoboxes. Clearly both options are not acceptable so can we make an ammendment to the infobox hurricane to include both the Aus scale and the SWIO Scale as well as the SSHS when we have basin crossers Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you know! I am working on Ariel now, I probably will try to do SWI until the infobox can be resolved.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 01:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Season Importance level

As many of you may already know, there is an ongoing dispute over the level of importance of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season. The current way to analyze a season's importance is by number of storms. However IP user 99.52.153.15, had brought up the point that the 2008 season has caused significant damage and being mid importance doesn't seem right. A good example just used was the 1992 season. Although the season was rather inactive, it was memorable in that the only major hurricane, Andrew, devastated southern Florida and part of Louisiana. There should be some adjustments made to determine how important a season really was. 2005 is, without a doubt, top importance. High importance seems to match up with seasons like 1933, 1969, 2004, and 2008 due to either the high level of activity or the impact caused by the storms. Mid level would be most other season as is already being done, and low would be seasons like 1914, where the season was minor in terms of impact and/or inactive. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, 1914 Atlantic hurricane season should be at least Mid-Importance due to its historical significance. After all, it was the least active season on record. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1992 AHS was not a huge thing at all . It is a different story with the 1992 PHS (my favorite season of all time). Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

JC- good point, got to find a better example ;)
YE- Ask people who survived Andrew or lost family members during the storm, much different story. The season cannot solely be based on the number of storms, it has to be based on the actual significance of the season, not in terms of statistics. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1907 Atlantic hurricane season is a better example of low importance, 5 tropical storms, no fatalities, very little impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we introduce either a Current importance or a Very High as i dont think 2008 AHS should be in the same category as 2008 PTS. this is because 2008 PTS has DOUBLE the amount of storms and DOUBLE the amount of Casualties.Jason Rees (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The 1992 PHS is a huge deal which should be top the 1992 AHS should be Mid while Hurricane Andrew should be top . Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the WPac is known for its large number of storms and significant damage. Thus, it's not terribly uncommon to see this many storms. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
True but its not known for exhausting its PAGASA list. Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For different basins, it should be based on the average effects of a season, thus we would have to have different scales for each basin. Otherwise, the Atlantic, save 1933, and 2005 would always be low to mid importance because of the WPac and SHem. I'll work on a basic scale for each basin this afternoon and tonight and put it here and see what everyone thinks. Hopefully that will clear things up and make classifying things easier (IMO). A quick run through this year from my perspective would have the ATL at High importance, the EPac at Mid, the WPac at Mid, NIo at High to Top (leaning more so to High), the SWI (07-08) at Mid to High, AU at Mid, SP at High. The reasoning for each of them is as follows.
ATL High- Very active season, +6 storms, +1 hurricane, +3 major. Second most destructive season on record and numerous other records broken.
EPac Mid- Average to slightly below average season
WPac Mid- Rather inactive, but Fengshen and the other deadly storms keeps the season from being Low
NIO High to Top- Nargis and Yemen depression. Costliest NIO season on record
SWI Mid to high- high number of intense storms, near record
AU Mid- Average season
SP High- Three powerful storms, all three of which were retired.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


The EPAC should be High because it is above average. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
EPac for this year isn't active enough to be high nor is it damaging enough. The ACE (which is used to determine the activity of a season) is near normal, thus giving it mid-importance. There is also a deficiency of major hurricanes this year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The 2003 season had even less Major hurricanes and we do not no how destructive Norbert or Odile or Julio or Lowell but we do now it killed 21 (all indirect because it was directly related to Ike). Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The deaths you just said are linked to Lowell are not related to it. They are not shared deaths since the moisture from Lowell passed through the midwest a few days before Ike, causing no fatalities. Julio will not be that destructive due to its low intensity and Odile remained offshore (although there were tropical storm force winds on land) and the damage was low. Norbert was destructive but since it was not enough to bring the season up to high importance. Also, with the scale I'm creating, it's best not to compare season to season, just compare it to the scale. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats why they are counted as indirect and prescor disturbance to Odile dumped heave rainfall over Central America for a week someone must have been killed. Julio caused some flooding in Nevada and Arizona. What would be the importance for the 2006 and 2007 seasons. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
iu just found a sorce for it and it includes Lowell. It is here Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That site is not a reliable source. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents without looking at the above, I feel that season articles must be weighed on the entire season, and compared only to its own basin. Perhaps that would be an objective criteria, in using the average damage/deaths per storm (season total divided by number of storms). Seasons that have one extraordinarily notable storm should probably be Mid-importance (no higher, I feel, if none of the other storms were notable). Overall, I don't think we should have very strict criteria. We know that the 2005 AHS is more important than 2006. If some criteria are needed, then we could do the outrageous route (albeit possibly a good move in this case, as suggested by our ol' pal Titoxd) of listing every season (split by basin), and putting them manually in order, and only then seeing what the dividing lines would be. For the Atlantic, it's very obvious that 1890 is toward the bottom of the list (as are several pre-1900 ones). I dunno. Is this discussion really that important (pun possibly intended)? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is more or less to clear things up as to why the current scale for importance is based on the number of storms in a season. What do you mean by listing every season in order? Do you mean by number of storms, deaths, damages, or all of the above? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant, if we're desperate and can't find a solution, putting every season in a logical order with all of the factors. Like I said, we know 2005 is more important than 2006, and is fact more important that every other season. That's why it would be at the top of the list, and, appropriately, it would be top class. It would be visualization for the importance, but, again, only if there is no other solution. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for clarifying :) Lets hope we don't have to go that far with this discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

328 links to dab page List of Atlantic hurricanes

JMA ATCR 2007

The JMA have finally put their Annual Tropical Cyclone Report for 2007 up on their website [Here] Jason Rees (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic and Pacific TC rainfall images

Is it just me or the quality of the TC rainfall images all of a sudden became horrible because the last time I looked they werent in such quality. Storm05 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm05, I am not sure but Norman, Nora and Ike all look ok. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 14:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Which storms are you talking about? They seem fine to me also. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the storm articles. The resolution on the TC rainfall images all of a sudden decline in quality, i.e. the rainfall maps look jagged and distorted, the lettering in the maps are now difficult to read and the non-shaded in rainfall maps are even harder to discern without clicking on the image itself. Storm05 (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Might just be your computer. I have no problems viewing them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Storm05, its a computer issue. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 14:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the same Storm05's problem. -Ramisses (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline coding error I can't figure out

...within the 1994 Pacific typhoon season. Something about barski and bardat not jiving. I'm still new with their use. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok ive seen where the problem is and i will fix it for you. Basically you missed out the P in barset:skip Thus it was coming up with barset ski Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jason. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
your welcome - its a shame that the timeline is still not showing the text Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe at some point wikipedia will fix this bug. It's haunting all the early 1980s Pacific typhoon articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
See bug 16085. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of all cyclones in 2008

This is not an article which will be published, but it will be more a thing for the project to use. User:Cyclonebiskit/2008 Global Cyclone season impact table is the article page. It's still being worked on but the bulk of it is done. The main reason as to why it wont be published is because of the RSMC's. The chart can only give info for one monitoring agency so I used the 1-min winds. The monthly totals are at the bottom of the page as well as a chart which is affected by the timeline bug. Feedback on this is appreciated. P.S. Don't edit the page without reasoning. I want to keep this a calm article which very few people edit so it's consistent. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good - Ill keep an eye on it but i wont edit it as it looks complicated Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that's another thing with it. Since it's made of so many templates, it's all gibberish in the edit box, easy to make mistakes (as I did many times while making it). I'm going to do the same thing for next year also. The data will differ from the operational advisories as I only use the best track data for intensities and to calculate ACE. The landfalls are either figured by looking at a map or from the season/storm articles. TD Rolly is a good example of eyeing a map to find the landfalls, I just used the name of the district/island to make it easier. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be used. There has been an occasional talk of an article like Tropical cyclones in 2008. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that it would be a massive article since it has to encompass (on average) at least 86 storms and numerous other statistics, no that I'm against something like that but it'd be very time consuming and long, resulting in the need for several people working on it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst it would be time consuming it would be worth it i feel as that table you have produced Cyclonebiskit looks good but i would wait untill the end of the NHEM TC Year. Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait until the end of the year for what? If you meant to make the table that's a long shot. As usual I made the basic page in one edit, but the initial table took hours to type, and several more to complete. I feel it's better to work on it as the info comes out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Cyclone my bad for not making myself clearer - I meant to do it as we went along but publish it at the end of the NHEM TC Year Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok, that sounds good :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for every EPAC storm update

I belive it a concisenes to do articles for every storm in the Epac now. the polls are

Support (needs to be good too)

Julinancolton

Yellow Evan

Plasticup

Jdorje

Crazy C83

Titoxd

Oppose

Jason Rees

Itfc+canes=me

Elena85

Neutral

thegreatdr

Cyclonebiskit


Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think i have corrected tha names but someone had better check Jason Rees (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
When did I vote for or against this? Consider me neutral. If people want to create articles for every tropical system, and are willing to spend the time to do so, that's fine with me. Our problem in the past has been people not having enough time to do so, and ultimately leaving the project for one reason or another. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Data error sorry. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral with this also. It depends from user to user. It all depends on writing skills and how much time you are willing to put into the article to allow it to stand on its own. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been talked to death. I removed my name, because I don't agree with it at all. If the content is well-written, the article of a reasonable length, and it is as comprehensive as possible/needed, then it can get an article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Then This they cannot be subs.Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
acaly every storm one 7-3-3. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure each of the people under support really support it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes nad every merged storm is getting unmerged and improved this week. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
NO Do not un-merge the articles. If you follow through with the un-merge, your actions will be considered disruptive and a block/ban is likely to follow. There has been no finalization of this discussion as I do not see any confirmation of support of this action, other than yourself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of it, there is not a lot anyway. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You are not getting the hint anybody is giving you. You are acting ridiculous. Cyclonebiskit is right, any admin who feels you are becoming disruptive will block you under their discretion. Now please stop.Mitch32(UP) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can create a good article, go for it. Just don't do all of them for the sake of doing all of them. This doesn't seem like a big deal. Don't "unmerge them this week"; this isn't a game, and there are no points for being first. Work on one at a time and make it good. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Globez, As i said before there is not a bunch of them. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 20:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not unmerge any articles unless you significantly improve them. If an article was merged, it was done so for a reason. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And note that my comment is only about making new articles; if something is unmerged from a recent merge than that constitutes a sizable revert and needs discussion. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
i will start with Seventeen-E, Odile and Lowell. I should be done by Christmas.
Don't put my name up on there with out asking me (I was on support until now), if you need to get it, get it like this, Any Article Can Be Made As long as it is long and comprehensive and Not Copied Nearly Directly Word For Word!, your Hector of 2006 article is almost copied word for word from the TCR, I checked. Please, improve your articles you have before creating new ones, Period.--Elena85 1959 Pacific Hurricane Season 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fix that, a article shoudn't be made unless it hits land or to complete a series.--Elena85 1959 Pacific Hurricane Season 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make it look like I have voted or commented in some section of a proposal. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't make shit up. I didn't support this proposal, and to imply I did is misleading at best. My position is, and continues to be, that articles can be made given that the articles are well-written. Otherwise, they'll be either merged or sent to AFD. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Titoxd, it is against standards to delete articles for the project although wikipedia says otherwise. We merge that's why I said NO STUBS unless this:
  • It made landfall
  • It was a Category 5 storm (we lose a FT)
  • It was retired (we lose a FT)

Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evan, it is not against standards to delete an article if it meets the requirements for deletion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the general Atlantic hurricane article

Soon after achieving GA around the beginning of September, the name of the Atlantic tropical cyclone article (changed to Atlantic tropical cyclones at the behest of a GA review and per common sense) was changed back to its original name, Atlantic hurricanes. There was a several day chat concerning the naming, and it appears the sentiment is for renaming the article with the title North Atlantic tropical cyclones. I'm posting a comment here to get more feedback over the next week before changing the name back. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would Personally prefer to see the article named as Atlantic Tropical Cyclones as tropical cyclone is the global name for a cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Cyclones are called hurricanes in the Atlantic and any articles introducing the term "tropical cyclone in the Atlantic" or any similar wording sounds like Wikipedia:No original research to me. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Since tropical cyclones include systems weaker than hurricanes, I don't see a problem with WP:OR. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current title, primarily since it's the most concise. Most people don't even know the difference between hurricanes and tropical cyclones. Plus, we clarify right away that it includes Atlantic tropical storms; An Atlantic hurricane or tropical storm is a tropical cyclone that forms in the North Atlantic Ocean. It would be extremely redundant to say A North Atlantic tropical cyclone is a tropical cyclone that forms in the North Atlantic Ocean. We've gone over it dozens of times before, over the use of hurricane vs. tropical cyclone. I don't see a need to change it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although we have, I have yet to see one source, meteorological or otherwise, define a hurricane as any tropical cyclone. North Atlantic tropical cyclone does realistically describe the article. I'm sure we could find a way to fix that sentence, should the name revert back to what it was before. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course "North Atlantic tropical cyclone" realistically describes the article, but I find it long and unnecessary. In the last debate, I found a few sources by experts using Atlantic hurricane as a collective term for Atlantic tropical cyclones. The best evidence is "hurricane season" and "National Hurricane Center", both of which no one would argue against that they exclude tropical storms. We want to go with the most accessible title. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A redirect could take care of that problem, unless someone, someday, writes an article which only covers North Atlantic hurricanes. Since so much research concerning tropical cyclones involves hurricanes, particularly major hurricanes, I could see a separate article taking this title, at some point. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, a redirect could take care of the problem if someone happened to type "North Atlantic tropical cyclone". There's no need for that separate article. It would only be point-ish, since it would easily fall in the current article. Furthermore, there's no need to change the title, since it is well-established already. We already have "Pacific hurricane" and "Pacific typhoon" as article titles, since even calling them "Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone" wouldn't be accurate due to SHEM. What is the overwhelming reason to change the title? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The GA review...and any future GA re-reviews the article will have (most of the GAs are reviewed every year or two.) I'm also not sure the current title would survive a FAC. After looking back at the former chat within the article in early September, there was more support for reverting the title back to the GA reviewer's suggestion than not. I'd rather avoid possible POV issues with titles, even if they're for the sake of simplicity. After all, why isn't the tropical cyclone article just named hurricane if we're looking for the simplest title possible (POV problems, maybe?) Thegreatdr (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO it's just, that a tropical cyclone is a tropical cyclone everywhere on the world. However, when we're talking about the cyclonic storm seasons we have to consider that in the Atlantic and EPac/CPac the tropical cyclone is called a hurricane, in the WPac a typhoon and so on. OR would be the attempt to install a Northern Atlantic tropical cyclone season. There is not such a thing. Not with the NHC, not with the WMO – and therefore not in the Wikipedia. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stormarchives

The stormarchives have been (re)moved, f. ex. ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archives/pacific/prelimep/ep1994/john/ seems not to exist anymore. Any hint where to seach now. Certainly a lot of articless are affected. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994-prelim/john/ You mean the prelim. reports? They're on the NHC site, where they've always been. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then. But the link above is from the Hurricane John (1994) article, as external link. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Retirements 2007-2008 (AUS)

Within the Australian region Cyclone season 2007-08 all the names were either retired or removed from the lists. So should we be using the 2007 or the 2008 designation at the end of the titles? Jason Rees (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If a name was retired, it gets the main article, so the (2007) or (2008) is removed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Did the BoM announce whether and if so which names were retired? --Matthiasb (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Not yet - but we all know that Durga and Guba were retired Jason Rees (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane John (1994)

That article does use in the Impact section the link http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~203411 as a reference, however this links to a not-related event. Could one knowing how to search that database please find the correct link. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kansas? John really did travel quite a distance ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article importance

There are many storms that are listed as "low" importance but should be "mid" importance:

Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

John upped to Mid-. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ekeka is already at mid. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Otis 2005 remained at sea, so that should stay at Low-importance. The rest seem to be borderline, other than Adrian and Alma 1996. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Otis 05 hit Baja as a Tropical Depression (see article) and 14 homeless shelters were opened. I agree that Adrian and Alma 96 should be "Mid". In my opinion, Norman 00, Norman 06 , Lane 00, and Dora 99, Alma 08 and Fausto 02, and PNW 75 should be "Mid" and Kathleen 76, Liza 76, Stan, Paul 82, and John 06 should all be "High". The 1992 PHS should be "Top". The 2008, 2006, 2002, 1997, and 1996 PHS should be "High". The 2003 and 2001 PHS should be "Mid". The 2005 PHS should be "Low". The 2007 PHS should be "Very-Low" due to the ACE of that season. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
There was already a discussion about importance of articles. We follow what was put out for the guidelines for rating an articles importance. Otis ranks as low since there were barely any effects from the storm, and it didn't make landfall, the remnant circulation dissipated offshore. I'll go storm by storm with reasonings for their ratings, also, very-low importance is being removed since it can't be picked by bots.
  • Norman (2000) - Low, not a significant number of fatalities and low damage
  • Norman (2006) - Low, almost no effects other than rain
  • Lane (2000) - Low, barely any effects
  • Dora (1999) - Low, possibly mid, minimal effects, however it was a long lived cat:4, discussion probably needed if you really want to be a pain with this one
  • Alma (2008) - Low, not a significant number of fatalities or damage, barely arguable due to record
  • Fausto (2002) - Low, possibly mid, no effects, however it was a long lived cat:4, discussion probably needed if you really want to be a pain with this one alse
  • PNW (1975) - Mid, very rare hurricane forming at a record high latitude
  • Kathleen (1976) Mid, $160 mill doesn't lean towards high
  • Liza (1976) - Arguable
  • Stan? Atlantic (2005) storm?
  • John (2006) - Mid, not damaging enough
  • 1992 PHS - Arguable
  • 2008 - Mid, near average
  • 2006 - Mid, arguable for high
  • 2002 - Mid, arguable due to Cat:5's
  • 1997 - Already high
  • 1996 - Mid, below average
  • 2003 - Already mid
  • 2001 - Already mid
  • 2005 - Mid, near average
  • 2007 - Arguable for low, currently mid

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is "Very Low" importance being removed? In 2007, Flossie is the only notable storm which should be "high". I tried to give 1992 "Top" but it was reverted. Kathleen would have been California's first billion dollar storm if it struck today. The 1996 PHS should be "High" because of the number of landfalls. Since 2005 AHS is "Top", the 1992 PHS should also be "Top". Storm05 kept unmerging Dora several times in 2006. For Liza, 600 deaths is VERY notable. It is also the forth strongest October landfall (behind 1959 Cane, Madeline, Kenna, and Norbert. If 1975 PNW is "Mid", Fausto should also be "Mid". For 2002, 3 Cat 5's in one season is rare. For Alma, 20 deaths in Central America is rare; it also set three records. Lane affected LOS ANGLES and its path included a loop. Jonh is the striongest storm to hit Baja ever (see Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008). Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

The following is a quote from the previous discussion on Article importance On a similar topic, why are we using "Very low" importance? Articles tagged with that are not being picked up by the WP:1.0 bot, and the classification gives minimal benefit at best. (Seriously, folks, the distinction between "low importance" and "Very low importance" is meaningless at best. Both say that the article is not one of our priorities, yet we still work on them because they're low-hanging fruit.) I have half a mind of TFD'ing the thing unless a very good reason for its existence is given (and "low" is already the bottom of the barrel...). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to compare storm to storm, it has to be compared to the standards. I've already expressed my thoughts on this and I'm not interested enough in this topic to express them again. What's done is done. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The system was fine until people started rating articles they created themselves. Most storms that led to a retired storm name are Mid-class. There are also a few real record breakers in that category (not ones that share records with a handful of other storms). If you guys want benchmarks, then nothing that caused less than a proven $500 million damages or >100 fatalities, or not retired belongs in Mid. Potapych (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use a scale such as this for storm articles:
  • Very Low- fishspiners below Cat. 3. Like Tropical Storm Erick (2007).
  • Low- Cat. 4 fishspinners, storms that cause a direct hit and under $15 million in damage for storms below Major Hurricane Status . There should be no more than 5 deaths.
  • Mid- Cat. 5 fishspinners. Storms should have no more than $625 million dollars in damage, or are long lived, rare path, or out of

season. These storms should have less than 20 deaths.

  • High- Retired. Should have no more than 700 deaths or no more than $4 billion in damage. They are the most intense or longest lived.
  • Top- The two most damaging and deadliest.

For seasons:

  • Very Low- 2007.
  • Low- 2004 or 1995.
  • Mid- 2005.
  • High- 1996, 1997, or 2004.
  • Top.- 1992

Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

No the current system is working fine, also Yellow Evan Very Low Importance is being deleted. Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No, like he said, the system is fine. There are a few outliers that people keep changing back for reasons that are unwarranted. Potapych (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive categorization for Mexican tropical cyclones - Category:Hurricanes in Mexico

Simple proposal. Right now, we have a sub-category for almost every Mexican state, but hardly any of them are being used. They're clutter. I propose all of the categories be deleted, and replaced with Category:Pacific hurricanes in Mexico and Category:Atlantic hurricanes in Mexico. If further categorization is needed, then Baja California peninsula and Yucatan peninsula categories would probably be warranted. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and me too though i do not see why the Baja California and Yucatan peninsula should deserve seprate categories as we dont have seperate categories for Fiji or other countries Jason Rees (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Fiji could warrant its own category. The only reason Baja California and Yucatan would warrant categories is because they are separate from the Mexican mainland, and thus somewhat more isolated. For this time around, I won't be doing them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question before I continue. Should the category (let's say Category:Atlantic hurricanes in Mexico) be both a sub-cat of Hurricanes in Mexico and Atlantic hurricanes, or only of Hurricanes in Mexico? Remember, we don't have any articles actually linking to Category:Atlantic hurricanes (since we organized them by strength). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are fine, I'd say. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get started. One more thing. For basin crossers, I'll just list both basins, since it was a cyclone in both basins. Alternatively, should they just be in the parent category of Hurricanes in Mexico? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say to leave the Hurricanes in Mexico category depopulated. Otherwise, people who didn't follow this thread won't know why a few pages are not in the other two categories. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)