Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Earliest Hurricane Research

Hey all. A few years ago I put together a website that cataloged the records for the earliest nth storm to form (for example, 2005 had many of these "earliest" storm records). The old site hasn't been touched in a couple years, and isn't 100% accurate any longer, but for reference: .

What I'm wondering is if another source of this information was ever created and posted on the internet. If not, I'll commence a plan to totally redo my page using a MYSQL database that will make it easy for me to update things in the future and keep it all current, even as new seasons and new updates to the HURDAT stuff come out. I'm just checking to make sure I'm not wasting my time in case someone else has already done so.

Thanks, --The Great Zo (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I've often searched for records like that, but yours is the only one I've seen. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
A few years ago I created a similar list for the East Pacific. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Since 2010 doesn't look like it'll be amending the records I'll be keeping, I've put this off a bit -- but I plan to start work on it some time this fall or winter and have it ready to go by the 2011 season. --The Great Zo (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Phet

If JTWC and IMD prove right the cyclone will have a direct hit on 16 mega metropole Karachi on 5 June as maybe a SSHS cat 3 equivalent. I suggest to improve the cyclone's individual article ASAP since it might considered to be on the main page in some 36 hours. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Gonu scheduled for TFA, only a month after the last TC article to appear on the main page. Just a heads-up, since I'm personally not in the mood for all the unnecessary criticism of the TC project for having too many FAs. Juliancolton (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

oh joy - I can see this being an issue at ITN tomorrow if we submit Phet.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And it's on the Main Page (as is Agatha), so it's watchlist time... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean you don't have every TC article watchlisted?! Juliancolton (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename 1928 Okeechobee hurricane

See here: Talk:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane#Requested_move Jason Rees (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Button bar template

An issue came up on a featured topic candidate, saying how we should add the button bar and other relevant articles to the button bar. Seeing as the button bar is pretty universal, I wanted to bring this up before I did anything. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Add it to the template. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
The only problem is coding it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree on having the template itself linked in the button bar (unless they mean the pervasive "vde" links in all the navboxes). The other two can be added if necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the relevant switch on the 2006 PHS button bar; if it looks good we can try that with the other basins. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SSHS vs. SSHWS in infoboxes

Currently we're using a link to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale in all the hurricane infoboxes, with a SSHS abbreviation. Should we switch that to SSHWS? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, doesn't only the NHC use the SSHWS so far? --Yueof theNorth 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope - NWS Guam and CPHC were using it last season whilst NWS Pago Pago used it during the SPAC season.Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops :) Thanks! --Yueof theNorth 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, doesn't the JTWC still technically use the SSHS? --Yueof theNorth 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Support - Technically talking the JTWC would be using the SSHWS for the WPAC/NIO by now whilst i suspect they will introduce it to the SHEM when the TC year changes on July 1.Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do?

I would like to help, knowing some about TCs, but I'm not sure what to do to help the project. dffgd (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in wherever you want - Specifically though we could do with more editors helping out with the current TC articles outside the NHC's AOR.Jason Rees (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
AOR? dffgd (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Area of Responsibility. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
See Tropical cyclone basins.Jason Rees (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 Atlantic hurricane season

I have an issue with the deads mentioned in the article; it says that only six persons have died. However, without having lookd vor other storms, this source claims that more than 140 may have died in inundations caused by Ida only. What's right, now? --Matthiasb (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That news source is incorrect. A few days after that news event, it became clear that Ida did not cause those those deaths in El Salvador. Even the National Hurricane Center backed that up. The death toll in the article should be correct. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Blas best track

Does anyone know where I can find a HURDAT-style best-track file for Blas? Or does somebody have one? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Rees (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yuck I'll have to convert it. Thanks though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


What happened to it? Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is taking interest in creating the next issue. Its not really a priority right now. Darren23Edits|Mail 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I could help work on it when someone wants to. But, okay. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Should this WikiProject have a userbox? I can make one, or if someone else would like. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 00:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

{{User WPTC}}? LittleMountain5 00:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. dffgd 01:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh. hahaha. I didn't see that before. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 02:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

Could an admin please delete File:01L 2010 5day.gif per CSD F8; there's a duplicate on Commons. Thanks, LittleMountain5 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is on commons... --Yueof theNorth 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Titoxd who i asked to take a quick look at the image it was deleted earlier

"*(del/undel) 12:54, 26 June 2010 Eustress (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:01L 2010 5day.gif" ‎ (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:01L 2010 5day.gif) (view/restore)" Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted eight minutes after I asked. (Thanks Eustress!) Sincerely, LittleMountain5 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

TWO's dead

Just about all of our TWO links are not working. YE Tropical Cyclone

What links? –dffgd 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just about every Tropical Weather Outlook link. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. You mean the refs? –dffgd 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course. YE Tropical Cyclone
I had been hoping that the hosting service that we used for the twos (FSU) would come back up however there are a number of different archives that can replace FSU. See my userpage for further links.Jason Rees (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating current TC articles

I'd like to help update the info on the TCs (at least the ones covered by the NHC) when they're current, but I'm not quite sure what to do. Could someone help? –dffgd 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have just read the forecast advisory and public advisory and fill out all the necessary areas. It's fairly self-explanatory, just change the fields that change, and one thing, if you do update, update everything, and some you might have to calculate yourself (gusts in kph) and sometimes you have to memorize the corresponding number (in Intermediate advisories, they dont give you the gusts, so you have to memorize the corresponding gusts with the winds). Darren23Edits|Mail 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got plenty of questions before I start. I'm looking at Alex as an example because it's still active. So I would update the infobox and the "Current storm information" section? How would I/would I put a new satellite image and/or forecast map? –dffgd 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont worry too much about updating the satellite and forecast images to much but for reference go to wikimedia commons and follow the instructions there on how to upload an image.Jason Rees (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check this user's contributions...

Hello. I'm patrolling recent changes. There's an anon user who's making lots of numerical edits to storm articles. I am not qualified to know whether it is vandalism, good faith incorrectness or a set of valuable contributions. I'd appreciate it if one of you chaps could work your way through his contributions and check him out. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They seem fine to meJason Rees (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Track map requests...

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to inform you that Titoxd has created a central place for track map requests. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks/Requests.

--Yueof theNorth 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And I had drafted a nice press release about it... but it seems it isn't necessary. :P Essentially that way we know which storms need track maps, which ones have been made, and which ones are still missing. That said, when adding track maps, it would really help if you gave us a link to the file where you got the data from, since we'll need it in the {{information}} template in Commons. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season at FLC

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1; I would like to see review from content editors, if possible. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

JMA vs. JTWC - still and maybe over again: Trackmaps

How do we handle we WPac track maps? Considering that the JMA is the recognized RSMC I am inclined to revert File:Dianmu 2010 track.png to the version which shows the storm crossing Japan but OTOH we're using JTWC BT data for those track maps, since otherwise we would not be able to compare intensities and could not be used the color scheme canonical used for those maps. But then, the article tells the storm crossed Japan, the RSMC Tokyo says it crossed Japan but our map does not. It's all a mess. Should not the datum be amended for the last positions using triangles and JMA BT positions? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont Revert it as that map isn't done using the Track map generator and looks horrible. What we will do is when the system fully dissipates over Alaska (in about 2-3 days time) ill add all of JMA/NOAA ET points to the tracking data page for the 2010 PTS and get them sent through the generator by someone.Jason Rees (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BT vs TCR on Good Article Nominations

The NHC has created Running Best Track Google Earth data for this season, in addition to their TCRs. Here's the question: Is the BT data enough to nominate an article for GA or should we wait for the TCR. The TCR is very comprehensive about the storm. The BT data is only representative of the location, the intensity, and the strength of the storm during certain 6hr periods. I propose that we should wait for the TCR for GANs, like Celia because it might not have all the information, lets say if it had a TCR. Darren23Edits|Mail 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it would not have all the info. Even if it did not, mnay wikiedpia sports articles have GA's that are active players. We can always update it later. Why not nominate when the BT comes out? YE Tropical Cyclone
Um, what does that have to do with my concern of not enough information before the TCR comes out? And would you please tell me if the the sports articles actually have a main "report" like a TCR or a BT? Darren23Edits|Mail 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I perosnaly beive there is enoguh infromation, we dont know when there will be a TCR update. Isn't the TCR an update fo the BT. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont think theirs enough information given out operationally to sustain a GA Nomination and also we all know that the NHC will issued the TCR before the start of the next season.Jason Rees (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
With Tropical Storm Alma, there was a bit of a precedent that GA nom's should not be done until the TCR comes out; see here and here. Following that means that running best track isn't enough to warrant a GA nom. However, one might make a distinction for systems that don't impact anyone/anywhere, such as ones that stay at sea, as it seems hard to imagine that TCR changes would amount to much more than adjusting the numbers. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait for the TCR. The TCR includes more information beyond a best track: they usually include updated damage statistics and meteorological discussion that cannot be gleaned from a RBT file. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So, does this mean Celia's GAN will have to fail on the basis of not having a TCR? Its good enough, but I really am not comfortable of having it with only the BT. Darren23Edits|Mail 06:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I say, wait for the TCR. As you said, it has way more information on the storm, and characteristics and the environment around it, it makes the article not seem so bland all about location and intensity. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A replacement for Template:Infobox hurricane current?


I was working with a template in my userspace and I believe that I have a relatively good (replacement?) for Template:Infobox hurricane current. It is located here: User:Anhamirak/Test5 and a preview is at User:Anhamirak/Sandbox#Goals. I believe that it is relatively reliable, however there are some things that might be a problem:

  1. It is only for the NHC/CPHC warned areas — This template works only for the Atlantic and E/C Pacific. I am working on another template for the rest of the world which should be done within a few weeks.
  2. You need to input the "RSMC Gusts" parameter or else the template will break — I am trying to fix this problem.

These are some of the more obvious problems I have been able to find as of now although there might be others. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!


Iune(talk) 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current infobox? The proposed infobox does not have a space for "layman" position information (latitude and longitude are meaningless to the average reader), and removes the link to the current info section. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Titxod, you being closed minded by the way. I dont my the new infobox at all, it is a good idea. YE Tropical Cyclone 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've identified three deficiencies when compared to the old infobox, so please tell me why you think it is a good idea, instead of launching into absurd ad hominems. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, while the old infobox is more comprehensive, there are good things about the new infobox. I do see it eventually replacing the old infobox, but since the NHC gives out more information which I think should be in the infobox (distances is one that comes to mind), but should we try the infoboxes for the other basins (SHEM, for example) as a test run to actually see how they will work when the total package is done? I so far, do not want it on the NHC/CPHC AOR just yet, but when successful, I will support this going through to all basins. Darren23Edits|Mail 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I added in the link to the current information into the template; I will add the "layman" positions now. — Iune(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I added in Layman positions w/ example at [1]Iune(talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The new infobox is alot more compact, and makes the season article look more neat than having the large, two times the size of the normal, infobox. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not just add the needed parameters into Template:Infobox hurricane and use only one template furthermore. It could save work and the sill conversion of knots and mph and km/h would be gone as well? --Matthiasb (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes/archive1

I am sorry but I nominated Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes/archive1 an FL nominate by this wikiproject. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Convert templates

Why do we never use [convert: needs a number] templates in TC articles? By not putting them in whats the purpose of them? YE Tropical Cyclone 13:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They're for other articles since the NHC has different conversion rates and they round it by 5. Darren23Edits|Mail 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How to flatten the surface of a image

Title says it all, I need help on flatten the surface of images and merging 2 in 1 such as [2], [3], [4], [5]. Is there anyway of doing so? I have Photoshop. Thanks. HurricaneSpin Talk 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got Photoshop too and I've been trying all summer trying to flatten real-time MODIS images, it's not possible. You'll need programs like this one [6] to decode the HDF and EOS files into a geocorrected image. Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! :) HurricaneSpin Talk 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tornadoes spawned by Hurricane Earl (1998)

Just so you all know, I put the aforementioned article up for AFD. Rationale listed there. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"The name was not retired and was later reused..."

OK, so most articles have that, and it is a generic filler to make the article seem longer. The problem is that the section doesn't have to do with that storm. What does Hurricane Earl in 2010 have to do with the Tropical Storm Earl in 2004, or the other Hurricane Earl in 1998? In short, that sort of info is just trivia. I believe we should remove such stuff from the article, since it is already in the dab.

While I'm at it, I don't think the dabs should always be at the top of the article. If the hurricane article is already differentiated (like Hurricane Earl (1998), then there is no need to say "This article is about the hurricane in 1998." I believe the dabs should be at the bottom of the page, in a see also section, saying Other storms of the same name. Some articles do that, but it'd be good to have consistency.

That's all for now. Please discuss both things. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the hatnotes either and they have been removed by people on certain articles. Personally i think its particularly pointless to have dabs for Parma, Ketsana and Morakot, which have been retired and lets face it arent likely to be used anywhere again.Jason Rees (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I may be guilty of this, I think I may have added tons of hatnotes when I created the disambig pages a few years back. The hat notes, I agree, aren't terribly useful in most cases. As for "the name was not retired..." I've been cleaning some of these up. There were some situations where a name was retired in 198x, and the article said "It was replaced by Foo, which was retired in 199x and replaced with Fnord, which was used in 199y and 200x and retired in 200y, and replaced with ..." We don't need the whole history, only the immediate naming transition is necessary. Nor does Hurricane Allen of 1980 have anything to do with Andrew of 1992 (it did have to do with Andrew of 1986, since that replaced it, but that's it), which had nothing to do with Alex of 2004 (but did with Alex of 1998, since that replaced it), etc... We had, until I went pruning, some long naming chronologies that weren't really relevant to the storm at hand. And finally, I don't think we need to say a storm wasn't retired unless it's clearly a shock (Hurricane Gordon). We don't need to say the status quo was maintained, that's assumed. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you added the hatnotes to make them visible, which is fine. I'm fine with them being somewhere in the article, which is why I think they should be under see also. But yea, you summed it up nicely. We don't need the naming/lack of retirement unless it's surprising. As for what's "surprising", even Gordon is tough, since the WMO didn't specifically say that retirement was or wasn't requested. I think unless we have something explicit from the WMO, there needn't be a mention of lack of retirement. Besides, most people don't even know of naming retirement. (BTW, loved the Fnord reference) --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point for disambiguated storms. However, for retired articles, leave the top hat-notes first. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, of course about the dabs for retired articles. Glad there is some agreement here. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Tropical Storms David, Hurricane Humberto, Tropical Storm Alex

The aforementioned articles are set index articles. We have hundreds of them, and they just sit there. In the past, we got in trouble for calling them dabs, but they aren't really disambiguation pages. It's merely a listing of names, right? We already have a listing of names, though.

I propose we redirect all such articles to List of named tropical cyclones.

This would avoid the trouble of keeping them updated, proper article titles, and perhaps giving them more what they really want. The only way people would come across Tropical Storm Alex is either from an article named Alex, or someone curious whether there was a storm named after them.

For the long term, for it to work, we'd have to move all of the links from the individual articles onto the main list, the latter which only has links to existing articles.

In the mean time, we wouldn't be losing anything by redirecting all of those articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, readers would be forced to load a very large article if all they forgot was a year modifier. I say no. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NASA GRIP (Genesis and Rapid Intensification Project)

I was quite surprised that we (or anybody for that matter) does not have a page dedicated to this, the ammount of information that will be coming out of this is amazing, I mean for the first time ever we have the Global Hawk doing 30 hour "over station" missions over TC's and at least some great images like these ones [7] have already come out of it... We should to partner with the NASA group to do this page, as it's going to be a huge research data mine in the future. -WxHalo(T/C)

Hmm intresting idea. I have several bits of information that has been emailed to me about this project. For example there are 3 separate projects going on to go into TC's this year to try and help all of the RSMC's to go to 7-day forecasting. These are NCAR & collabartors otherwise known as the PREDICT flights, NASA's Grip and NOAA is leading the Intensity Forecasting Experiment and all this is on top of the normal recon.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

References, column numbers

Is there any "project standard" that prohibits the use of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on hurricane season articles, as User:Jason Rees claims? If so, I'd like to hear why. --bender235 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorta, it is a tendency that we always used. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That's it? And is there any reason not to abandon this habit? Because {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} has the advantage of flexible column numbers. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont like it, it sometiem sgive 3 columns at least on my screen. YE Tropical Cyclone 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a rule or guideline that says you have to use that, or is it just a matter of personal preference? If its the latter, I think its fine just the way it is now. Darren23Edits|Mail 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: Yes, it produces three columns on a 19-inch screen. If your screen size was smaller, than it would produce less. That is a feature, not a bug.
@Darren23: There is no rule for either one, only a recommendation not to use {{Reflist|3}}. However, I don't see any reason not to use {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. It just doesn't make sense to have a fixed number of columns, because there are different amounts of "space" available on a 22-inch monitor compared to a 10-inch netbook screen, for example. --bender235 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I still oppose this. YE Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that might be your personal preference. But from a usability and accessibility standpoint, it would be better to use colwidth, because people browse Wikipedia on all kinds of devices, from mobile phones to desktop PCs. It just does not make sense to have a fixed number of ref columns for all those different screen sizes. --bender235 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
ummm... You cant access Wikipedia via a mobile as the screen is far too small to allow you to read WP properly.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can access Wikipedia with an iPhone (or similar). But it would be absurd to display the same number of columns on smartphone screens like on 22-inch monitors. --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No you cant especially articles like List of historic tropical cyclone names and no its not absurd to have the same amount of columns on a smart phone as you get on a normal monitor.Jason Rees (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose as i see no reason to chance and also their is no flexibility within it, you cant for instance say in your user preferences how many columns you want to see for the references. WP:CITE is also pretty clear about not changing reference formats,
In WP:CITE#HOW: "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.
In WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.Jason Rees (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, "gaining consensus", that's what I'm trying to do. And by the way, there is no difference in flexibility between {{Reflist|2}} and {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. You can easily disable columns in both cases, see Template:Reflist#Customizing the view. --bender235 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: If we took that "first user owns the article" rule in WP:CITEHOW seriously, we'd still be using <references /> instead of {{Reflist}}. But of course we don't. --bender235 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My oppose still stands as that page isn't clear in how you go about changing it and the average reader would need a degree to figure it out.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I really dont see any benfit of using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} than {{Reflist|2}}. YE Tropical Cyclone Its my b'day 14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I already told you: it's only one difference, and therefore only one benefit: having the number of columns determined by the width of your screen. --bender235 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Does not seem like much of a benfit too me. YE Tropical Cyclone Its my b'day 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
YE, Can you provide an argument that is better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
Bender, is there any particular guidance on the MOS about this? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No, MOS does not recommend any format. It does not even recommend to use {{Reflist}} rather than <references />. However, I believe using |colwidth=30em has the most benefits. --bender235 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
My opion still stadn there is no need. Most people dont even care how the refs are displyed so why are we arguing about this pointless debate? Why waste time changing something that no won cares about? YE Tropical Cyclone Its my b'day 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I frankly believe people actually do care about those references. If you don't care about them, why are you obstructing the change anyway? And by the way, grammar wouldn't hurt either. --bender235 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The only argument you have for changing the reference format is your personal opinion that it looks better. That's fine, but if everybody else objects, you have to either take it or leave it until you can find or develop a guideline that backs your opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually my arguments were usability and accessibility. But you're right, there is no guideline that says "keep in mind that Wikipedia is viewed on all kind of devices". --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

\r FWIW, my question is with the 30em. What makes that size better than lets say, 40em or 35em? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. 30em is the current recommendation (recently discussed in WikiProject Usability). Anything from 20em to 60em is fine, too, having the same benefit as 30em (that being the number of columns being determined by the screen size). It depends on the length of the references. --bender235 (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I was having this argument with User:Jason Rees again, I'm re-opening this discussion. Can anyone tell me, why {{Reflist|2}} should be preferred over {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (or 45em, or 60em), besides the obvious (and weak) "we always had it this way and gotten used to it" argument? I mean, is there any "gain" in usability I don't see, in having two columns on a 480×800 mobile phone screen just as having two columns on a 1920×1200 wide screen monitor? —bender235 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks a lot neater and looks neat on any screen as opposed to Colwidth which as you said looks ugly on large screens (21+ inch). Also just because something is recommended by a group of editors doesn't mean we have to use it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So two columns look "neat", but three (or four) on wider screens don't? Why? And no, you don't have to use something because others recommended it. But you should at lease name a good reason why, don't you think?
And by the way, I said the exact opposite: having two columns on a 1920px screen looks ugly, while four columns (on that screen size) are much better to read. —bender235 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Because its makes it harder to find the specific reference you are looking for.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
What? Are you aware of the fact that the references are still sorted in numerical order, regardless of the number of columns? And that they still get an on-click blue shade, regardless of the number of columns? —bender235 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Im well aware of that but you still need to go searching for references at times regardless of numbering.Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So your argument is that if there are too many (more than two? Or how many?) columns, the reference section looks confusing, right? Then why not having a colwidth of, say, 45em, that produces only two (instead of three) columns on 1280px screens? —bender235 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont see any reason why not to leave it as RL2.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I already named it. A 480px screen is too small for two columns, while 1920px screens are too wide for only two. You just can't "squeeze" the same amount of columns in every screen size. —bender235 (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes you can. As i keep saying a 480px screen is nto tot small and 1920px screens are not too wide for only two columns.Jason Rees (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since User:Jason Rees obviously has no argument and just opposes on (some) principle, I hope someone else will join this discussion, and answers my question: can anyone tell me, why {{Reflist|2}} should be preferred over {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (or 45em, or 60em), besides the obvious (and weak) "we always had it this way and gotten used to it" argument? I mean, is there any "gain" in usability I don't see, in having two columns on a 480×800 mobile phone screen just as having two columns on a 1920×1200 wide screen monitor? Or is it, in the end, only Jason Rees who declared two columns fixed a "project standard"? —bender235 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Acctully mate i think it you who has no argument. Your argument is that 5 members of a project have decided that they think colwidth is best used all over wikipedia. But have not sought to get a consensus from ordinary wikipedians outside your project before implementing this silly little bug. (ie A wikipedia wide poll). Also i do not see any gain in usabilty from having colwidth instead of RL2 because you can squeeze two columns in to a mobile pohone screen and its not too small as you claim. Why the hell are they trying to access WP from a phone anyway. Most of our articles are far too large to fit on too a mobile phone screen. Also if you open your eyes and read above you will find people bakcing me up about this being a project standard. If Wiki-projects arent allowed their own standards and have to use STUPID wikipediawide feature such as colwidth why the fuck do we have projects. Also you guys havent even put an option in User:preferences to allow people to have a set amount of columns instead you have to copy a shity bit of code to do it and risk it harming your computer. Jason Rees (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a project standard, and I like both. People view articles on their cell phone were column 2 fits. However, on my 14 inch screen we get 2 columns which. However, I am leaning for 30em as bender235 stated. JR. consensuses change on Wikipedia. Mabey a comprise is 45em? YE Tropical Cyclone 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: where, when, and by whom was decided that {{Reflist|2}} is "a project standard", as Jason Rees calls it?
And to answer your question regard WikiProjects ("If Wiki-projects arent allowed their own standards and have to use STUPID wikipediawide feature such as colwidth why the fuck do we have projects."): those projects are meant to maintain and expand articles' content, not to set up their own Manual of Style. —bender235 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, but i solved the issue but putting |colwidth=40em in my favorite storms article and JR is ok wit it. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
But we haven't set up our own manual of style, we just have certain standards which includes using RL2 and you cant bullshit me into saying the MOS backs up your stupid colwidth thing.Jason Rees (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Who agreed on this standard, where, and when? —bender235 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you still pondering on an answer, or is this "project standard" thing off the table? —bender235 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Its somewhere in the archives of this page i think but i too busy this week with the peak of the hurricane season to go through the archives for you and find it. If youre that interested go and find it yourself.Jason Rees (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to be blunt, but I want to see who decided that and when as well. Now, where on WP Usability was the 30 em discussed? I'd like to see that as well... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"30em" is discussed here, no decision yet. Jason Rees, its your obligation to provide the source for your claim, not mine. —bender235 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Before we make any large changes, can we wait for that discussion to end first? If given a good enough reason, consensus can change, and we might use the absolute width instead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, my fault. I thought this was over after Jason Rees essentially abandoned the discussion. So how long are we going to wait for that "good enough reason"? —bender235 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ill look though the archives and find it when I have a chance, but this is not a proitry of mine becuase I have an article that Needs to be written and articel at FLRC not to mention school and homework. YE Tropical Cyclone
YE, who cares. Bender, I'm not sure about the answer. I meant that we should wait if/until the discussion on the usability project yields a usable result. If it doesn't in a reasonable period of time (I have no idea how active those guys are), we can always just begin a discussion about what the consensus should be, regardless of what the consensus currently is. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of digging the archives for some consensus months or years ago, we can just conduct a poll now. I'd say we end it with the Atlantic hurricane season (November 30), just to give everyone a chance to cast their vote. —bender235 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just for your information: there's an ongoing discussion at Template:Reflist whether the fixed columns option (e.g. {{Reflist}}) should be replaced, which would make this poll obsolete anyway. —bender235 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


In reference sections, articles within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones should use...

  • Probender235 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Still not sure about 45 em as apposed to 30, but yes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I viewed Wikipedia from my Iphone at RL 2 looked somewhat bad. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No preference
  • I would prefer Reflist=2, however I would not oppose if there is consensus for Reflist=45 em. — Iune(talk) 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • My vote is the same as Iune. I just don't see the big deal, either way. Let me know what you all decide and I'll follow it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Same as the above two, if only to make an even 3-3-3. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Book:Greatest Category 5 Hurricanes

Book:Greatest Category 5 Hurricanes, which is related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Greatest Category 5 Hurricanes . Thank you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Early hurricane season names

(copied from Talk:Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons)

Regarding this move by User:Hurricanehink: why do you think there were no hurricane seasons before 1600? —bender235 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons are something man-made, and the first official hurricane season wasn't until the 1930s. It's like saying there were baseball seasons before the invention of baseball. I don't mind the season article for consistency back a little bit, but not all the way back. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the definition of "hurricane season" is man-made in the 1930s, but nonetheless there were hurricane seasons for thousands and millions of years. From your perspective, we'd also have to rename Great Hurricane of 1780, because the definition of "hurricane" did not exist back then. —bender235 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
IDK. To be technical, the storms before 1800 or whatever were retroactively called tropical cyclones, and none were called such at the time. I don't think any years were considered seasons retroactively. A season implies something structured, but there was no structure for any of those years. We just happen to know of a few isolated incidents of tropical cyclones in those years, hence my change in title. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't you then have to rename all "seasons" up to 1930? —bender235 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a bit much. HURDAT doesn't really refer to any early years as "seasons", although they do mention 1914 being the "quietest hurricane season ever". That more or less justifies keeping the years as seasons back to 1851 (if they were all individual yearly articles), but I would say the decadal articles pre-1851 should not be referred as "seasons". --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I just checked that David M. Ludlum mentions "hurricane seasons" in his book, Early American Hurricanes (e.g. page 7, "The season of 1591..."). So does José Carlos Millás in Hurricanes of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions, 1492-1800 (e.g. page 24, "...good fortune that Columbus had in his first voyage of 1492 to the New World, undertaken precisely during the height of the hurricane season..."). So it looks like scientists do recognize the existence of early hurricane seasons. —bender235 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
IDK, I just think using "hurricane seasons" in the title seems too specific for such a broad topic. The article isn't about the individual seasons, unlike 1851 to present, but rather the tropical cyclones that we know of in a certain set of years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
True. And by the way, I was about to say that its the same on 1600–1619 Atlantic hurricane seasons, but I just saw you moved it to List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 1600s. But it is still the same on 1700–1719 Atlantic hurricane seasons. And although I'm beginning to see your point, I think we might this discuss this with more participants, let's say on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Because if we keep List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 1600s, we would also have to create List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 1700s, and maybe List of Atlantic hurricanes 1800–1849. —bender235 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

<-- Agreed about the larger discussion, and I was going to do the same with the 1700s. One, there's no need to have all of those separate articles (I'm guilty, I know), and two, I'd hate to put the idea in readers' minds that there was a designated season in each of those years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We could rename the offending articles something like "Atlantic hurricanes, YYYY-YYYY". It might seem like a fudge but it would let the articles retain almost the exact same structure, but without calling them seasons. So, using the article Hurricanehink mentioned, we would have Atlantic hurricanes, pre-1600. Appropriate changes could be made for other basins, mutatis mutandis (eg Pacific hurricanes, pre-1800. Such a mass renaming like this would also be simple enough to program a bot to do. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually it might be a good idea to put 16th, 17th and 18th centuries list together in one list per century. I doubt that these lists could grow for much more content. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
We could do List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 1600s and the like. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we could do one per century for those centuries, easily. Matthiasb is right, I doubt we'll find that many more (unless!!!! HURDAT is extended to 1750, which is possible). There really isn't that much info on storms up through 1799. Most of them are guesses in intensity and single point tracks, with a death toll and some damage info. The question then becomes 1800-1850. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, what about 1780 Atlantic hurricane season? --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As for article naming, it would be simpler, and avoid issues, just to format the names of various years of tropical cyclone activity similar to 2010 Atlantic tropical cyclones. That way, you avoid semantic complications of storms falling outside a politically defined hurricane season. I'm sure someone could design a bot to do this task...I do not know how to create bot myself. I know I've brought this up before during the Zeta placement debacle, but if we're considering changing the name of the season articles, I figured I'd bring it back up. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That is true, especially considering recent years are more and more likely having storms in the off-season. I also want to point out that we have some season articles that include possible storms (as considered by someone or another). I like your suggestion. I was going to suggest something like "Atlantic hurricanes in 2010", but then you run into the problem of using "Atlantic hurricane" vs. "North Atlantic tropical cyclone". Still, it's shorter, and it is the "Atlantic hurricane" season after all. I think by shifting it away from the season, it becomes more about the natural aspect of the seasons (the storms) than the manmade aspect (the rigidly defined arbitrary dates). Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We still have Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons. Should that be moved to "List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600"? What about other seasons before 1851? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)