Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Pacific typhoon season articles: Adding more clarification
Potapych (talk | contribs)
4,151 edits
Line 272: Line 272:
::The individual boxes have just one pressure and one wind reading displayed. The problem is that so many of these are mixed up between the different sources, and that they should all have the same source. RSMC doesn't matter too much since only JTWC has ALL the storms covered in the articles. You can't have severe tropical storms side-by-side super typhoons. That's what this project agreed on, but then I noticed the mix of data. [[User:Potapych|Potapych]] ([[User talk:Potapych|talk]]) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::The individual boxes have just one pressure and one wind reading displayed. The problem is that so many of these are mixed up between the different sources, and that they should all have the same source. RSMC doesn't matter too much since only JTWC has ALL the storms covered in the articles. You can't have severe tropical storms side-by-side super typhoons. That's what this project agreed on, but then I noticed the mix of data. [[User:Potapych|Potapych]] ([[User talk:Potapych|talk]]) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::A semantics time-out has been called. What do you mean by "individual boxes"? Some articles don't have a modern version of infoboxes for individual storms, which has been forced to be changed/upgraded for seasons which have undergone GAN. Check out the 1981-1986 Pacific typhoon seasons and see if the season articles you are working on use the same infoboxes. We need to be sure we're on the same page if this topic is going to be discussed. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::A semantics time-out has been called. What do you mean by "individual boxes"? Some articles don't have a modern version of infoboxes for individual storms, which has been forced to be changed/upgraded for seasons which have undergone GAN. Check out the 1981-1986 Pacific typhoon seasons and see if the season articles you are working on use the same infoboxes. We need to be sure we're on the same page if this topic is going to be discussed. [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Individual boxes = individual infoboxes for each system. I took a quick glance at [[1981 Pacific typhoon season]] and there are some problems there. There are no mentions of JMA but the pressures appear to be taken from there. The article should use one warning center for all the systems (and that is only possible to do with JTWC). [[User:Potapych|Potapych]] ([[User talk:Potapych|talk]]) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:07, 16 June 2009

Shortcuts

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

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 28 Jul 2024 – Mike's Weather Page (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by OhHaiMark (t · c) was withdrawn by OhHaiMark (t · c) on 29 Jul 2024; see discussion (4 participants)

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Featured topic removal candidates

Articles to be merged

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
| 49

Task forces

→ Western Pacific task force (talk)
→ Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
→ Atlantic task force (talk)
→ North Indian Ocean task force (talk)
→ Southern Hemisphere task force (talk)
→ Graphics task force (talk)
→ 2018 FT task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Cyclone Cup (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Showcase (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Awards (talk)

Assessment

Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

Parent project

WikiProject Weather (talk)

Article challenge

Inspired by the USRD county challenge, I propose a challenge of our own:
To write or expand a stub/start article to GA status from each of the 8 (eight) basins, all of which must be mid-importance or higher
Season articles are allowed, and to avoid bias, the GA reviews cannot be done from anyone else in the competition. Any articles to be expanded must be start or stub class at of the start of the challenge. Interested? Then sign up! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, yes, Central Pacific is included, despite its few number of articles. For an article from that basin, it can either be an EPAC season that had at least one CPAC storm, a new CPAC article (which could be low-importance, but it had to affect land), or improve a start/stub article that was in the CPAC.
Also, to mark your progress, put your name in bold, as seen below, and list the basin, followed by the storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a hard time finding EPAC storm that is not too old. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Participants

  1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cyclonebiskit 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jason Rees (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Yue of the North 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

Cyclonebiskit

Jason Rees

Juliancolton

HurricaneSpin

Hurricane Angel Saki

Titoxd

  • North Atlantic —
  • East Pacific — 1992 Pacific hurricane season (Start/High)
  • Central Pacific —
  • West Pacific —
  • South Pacific —
  • Australian —
  • North Indian —
  • South-West Indian —

Yellow Evan

  • North Atlantic —
  • East Pacific —
  • Central Pacific —
  • West Pacific —
  • South Pacific —
  • Australian —
  • North Indian —
  • South-West Indian —

Merging issue

Judging from JC's actions, this recent merging spree is overdoing it. IIRC, merging was one of the problems with the project, yet there was a sudden influx in it. I don't think we should really be thinking about what articles to get rid of. It's fine to have stub articles or ones that don't have much information. There are much shorter articles throughout wikipedia, so there's no reason to make this project have standards like that. Everyones thoughts on this are very important for this to be resolved. Cyclonebiskit 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, most of the recent mergers (there have only been 3) have been for articles that couldn't really be expanded any more (or it would be impossible to have a complete article), so we simply opted not to have an article. The merging process is more to avoid an AFD. One article merged was Tropical Storm Kirsten (1966), which had very little info, and given the time period wasn't likely to have much more info. Another was the 1842 Spain hurricane, which only had one source on it, so per WP:N it shouldn't have an article. The third was Hurricane Lane (2000), which had been merged previously, and there was no new info added that was separate from the season article. IMO the problem isn't whether to merge stubby articles. The problem comes from what storms should get articles, which still seems to be a perennial debate. Perhaps as a project, we need to decide once and for all whether all, and truly all storms should have articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the last part of what I said, I mean have a discussion mostly whether all storms are inherently notable, or not. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a simple, preliminary straw poll to get some input. I think everyone knows both sides of the issue. I personally think notability should be determined by what the storm did, but others think that it is inherently notable because it was named. Let's keep discussions up here. I avoided a Neutral section, as there isn't a need. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This place needs more common sense. There are probably 100 named storms every year. Most go unnoticed, because let's face it - who actually wants to read this article? Potapych (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, honestly. To avoid creating an article just because somebody might not read it is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing on Wikipedia—spreading the sum of all human knowledge. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's relevant. In summarizing all of human knowledge, we are deciding now whether to have an entire article with excessive detail for a potentially non-notable storm, versus having a condensed version in the season article. There was never a proposal to get rid of non-notable storms from the project - just whether or not having separate articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is relying on one source there's really little point to having it. There's no synthesis of material - it's just a restatement of an NHC report, which is already linked to in the season article. NHC also usually has a section that covers meteorological history and one for damages. Potapych (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Partly agreed. BTW, When should this poll close as all of our main editors have already voted?--Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't vote on this one. I'm both for and against this. Older storms (pre 1990) shouldn't really have an article if they didn't impact land. However, it's reasonable to have an article for any storm post 2000 and debatable for 1990 to 1999 storms. Cyclonebiskit 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new one, I still don't think that all of the named ones should get articles. TS Chris in 2000, for example, could probably never have enough info for an article. Nothing should be inherently notable; we should have some criteria for determining tropical cyclone notability. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being named/officially tracked is a sufficient criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris 00? Kristy 00? Neither have enough info to support an article, as there are no TWO's, and they lasted so little time. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily write a four-paragraph article on Chris or Kristy. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I seriously doubt there could be four paragraphs of useful info on either, I more meant that there are likely several articles since 2000 that don't have enough info to support a well-built article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we could write articles on every storm, and keep the ones that are able to sustain a reasonable amount of content. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is such a waste of time, though. First, I think we all know how easy it is to expand or condense information, depending on your choice of words. Second, what is a "reasonable amount"? We have many articles that have two or three paragraphs of met. history, and a short extra paragraph on trivia (naming, formerly ACE, confirming no land impact); and at the same time we usually have two paragraphs in the season article. Rather than worrying if there's not enough info or not, let's get a sensible criteria that can be applied throughout the project. I still prefer my earlier criteria of requiring sources independent of any warning centers, at least as a starting point. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think why many people write articles for fishspinners is because it is easy to write. It took me 5 min to write the MH for Kevin 03. It could easily become a GA. --Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YE dont talk bullshit when even JC has merged articles that are not worthy on off an article Jason Rees (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On IRC, we're talking about named storms and their notability, and I thought of something that could use a comment. What about named storms that were de-classified in post-analysis (Isobel 07, Kendra 66, or Hillary 67)? Alternatively, what about unnamed storms that were only classified in post-analysis (2006, 1991, 1987? With these exceptions, can naming really be considered an adequate test for notability? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about tropical depressions? Are they notable, even though they aren't named? TD's receive similar coverage than named storms, except they don't appear in the best track. Juliancolton on IRC said he didn't think TD's were notable, because they weren't named, but why should a tropical cyclone with 35 mph winds be considered any less notable than a tropical cyclone thought to have 40 mph winds? My previous comment and this comment are reasons why I don't think naming should be an indicator of notability. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some TDs are significantly more important due to their impacts, but I'm not sure where that fits in within notability. You'd think there would be some link between importance and notability. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
indeed Tropical depression 04F (2009) is a good exampleJason Rees (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a pretty common flood event. The only types of depressions I think are notable are ones like 1982's Paul. Potapych (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what the significance of this one is: Tropical Depression Gener (2008). Potapych (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes without asking, but why shouldn't notability mean importance? We briefly used to have a very-low importance class, for the fishspinner articles, and we admitted they all were much less important than other articles. Does the fact that it's named really make it important? What about for tropical depressions in general, which are by most means identical to a 40 mph named storm? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the difference between a very-low importance storm and a low-importance storm is pure semantic pedantry, and was cutting our noses to spite our faces, particularly when it came to WP 1.0 bot identifying our projects' articles. The same is true to this discussion: neither one is very important, so does it even matter? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I more meant that as a project, we admitted we had some extremely unimportant articles. I'll ask again the question which I haven't gotten a good answer - why should naming be considered so important? Why should a supposed 40 mph tropical cyclone be considered that much more notable than a supposed 35 mph tropical storm? It is well within the realm of possibility that a TD was actually a TS, and the TS was actually only a TD, since storms in the middle of the ocean generally don't get their winds directly measures. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldnt be assessing notabilty by naming as otherwise that would include all the PAGASA Depressions in the WPAC but none of the rest, unless their is something really important about them. Also if we go assessing by however many forecasting agencys or Federal Agencys monitored the storm it would mean that we have articles on evrey disturbance as more then one agency monitor each storm which would be stupid since most depressions do nothing bar exist. Jason Rees (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone started an article on that storm in the Indian Ocean right now. It says on the page here you're supposed to start a discussion on the season talk page first, so some are really too eager to start a bunch of new articles. Would anyone agree to starting discussions here (where it will be seen by more people) and getting support from five or more people before starting an article on a storm? Potapych (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For active articles that threaten land, I think the project should start having project sandboxes, as was suggested a few months ago. This lets anyone work on it while it's active (as opposed to one person generally working on an article in their userspace), and it allows the article to be built up a bit before it's needed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant that about starting articles about past storms. Anyone can challenge an article with a merge notice, but they probably won't do that for something like Hurricane Donna. It would make sense to check here before starting on a new article. Potapych (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some people here think that not all named TC's (post 2000) are notable and why isn't the NHC an independent source? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
You know what, It is time to close this debate. They will be less arguing over notability if we allow all named storms since 2000 to have an article. These storms are guaranteed sources. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)...no? We agreed that all named storms are not necessarily notable, as there is a certain time period when there are few to no sources. You can't just use a catch-all term like "all named storms have an article", because it's unfeasible: what about storms like Hurricane Gail (1953), Tropical Storm Rebecca (1961), Cyclone Sam (1977)? I would be fine if there was an agreement like "All named storms are notable enough to appear somewhere on Wikipedia", as that's what we should be doing with our season articles. Anything regarding all named storms having articles, even from an arbitrary date like 1998, well that's just silly. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: are all named tropical cyclones inherently notable, regardless of what they did?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the Poll was: Not all Tropical cyclones are notable.
Yes
  1. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Yue of the North 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per below "vote" on straw poll. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No
  1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Potapych (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 14:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cyclonebiskit 18:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (see above)[reply]
  6. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Inherently? No. RunningOnBrains 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) most of it are sort of unknown.[reply]
  10. No in the same way that not all major solar prominences are notable. Seddσn talk 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A new proposal: all named storms post-2000 are inherently notable, regardless of what they did.

Yes
  1. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Yue of the North 19:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Less headaches all around. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Naming, advisory, reports, even for 3F of 2009 (even it haven't named). Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 00:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Even more so. There are guaranteed to be sources here. If every town has an article...well, why shouldn't Tropical Cyclones? There is just as much, if not a lot more, information to write valid articles on them. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No
  1. Jason Rees (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cyclonebiskit 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Potapych (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal: Having articles for all named tropical cyclones (2000-present) is reasonable, but the article most be at least start class to stay

Yes

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

No

  1. I say at least C class to stay. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Thegreatdr. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C-classed. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 4

As the second and third polls finished without a clear consensus we are going to have another poll to hopefully settle this argument once and for all

All named storms are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but not necessarily all to have their own article" ?

Yes
  1. Jason Rees (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This can be covered nicely in the season article, for most systems. The only storms which must have articles are the retired systems, which had significant impact. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. Fishspinners don't need articles, but should be covered in seasonal articles.-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
  6. Minor ones should be very detailed in season articles, but not necessary for storm articles. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No
Other
  1. Other for reasons I'll get to. I think that "All named storms are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but not necessarily all to have their own article" is just a glorified way of saying "Keep the status quo". That is pretty much what we are doing now. Yes indeed, every namaeable storm should have a section, and not all of them need their own article, but this poll's inevitable decision does not go far enough towards deciding anything. At best, it adds an admonishment to make fewer articles. But in the iffy in-between cases, what exactly makes a storm with a section deserving of an article? This poll does not decide that. I think that this poll's inevitable decision will eventually evolve into what we have now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This whole controversy is absurd, stupid, and embarrassing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yea, this poll does nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more well-organized and comprehensive poll

User:Juliancolton/WPTC poll. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noel (2001) - move?

I've been thinking, and I'm a bit unsatisfied with that article, for the reason that most of the content there is under the wrong title. Most of that article is on a storm that brought strong winds to Atlantic Canada in November 2001, and was actually listed as one of the top 10 weather events in Canada in 2001. I wrote the article, and the reason I put it under Noel's article was that the event was only loosely related to Noel, in that it absorbed it and became stronger. I regret the article choice now, and basically, I think the impact should be part of, say, November 2001 Canada storm.

One solution would be to move it, and then greatly reduce the focus on Noel. The alternative solution would be to create a new article, move the impact over there, and be left with a more bare article on Noel. Any thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to go with the latter option, so no valuable content is lost. Otherwise I'm all for it. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no content would be lost. I'd just put it in the season article, like a usual merge. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ike is not a core article to this project

We agreed a couple years back to restrict the core articles to some of the general met articles, as well as 1-2 storms per basin. I think of storms which hit Texas more worthy than Ike (Carla and Beulah come to mind), if Ike is considered one of our project's 13-14 core articles. That alone disallows Ike. Hence, I removed Ike from that list, and it is appropriately listed on our long vital articles list. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second-most viewed article of the entire project, behind only Katrina, I think that should lean towards Ike being a core article, but it probably would be best to wait a year or two and see how memorable it really was. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because it was retired this past year. Carla and Beulah had significantly greater impact, and had a more significant impact in Texas both wind and rainwise. Based on its viewership, we should make sure it is of high importance then. The question to ask is "Would an encyclopedia carry an article on Hurricane Ike?" Camille, Katrina, Andrew, the Galveston Hurricane, 1938 Long Island Express, 1926 Miami Hurricane, sure. Carla, Hugo, and Beulah, maybe. Ike, in my opinion, no, similar to other throw away category 2/3 hurricanes which had a minimal death toll and average to below average rain impact. Keep in mind that this core article list was meant to be small, and was originally capped at 10 articles. So far, the project doesn't appear to have tackled their improvement; maybe its purpose has become lost/forgotten over the years. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, good point, but rainfall Ike really wasn't a "throw away category 2/3 hurricane", it was the third costliest storm to ever hit the US (and likely in the top-five worldwide). Storms after Katrina that have the kind of effect of Ike are also likely to get a lot of attention due to the new-found fear of hurricanes in the United States. I'm not sure on the exact number, but I believe Ike did trigger one of the largest evacuations in the united states in addition to the tens of millions of people it affected from the Caribbean to Canada. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If damage totals are adjusted just for inflation, Ike comes in third. If adjusted for inflation and population change, Ike is 9th. Any storm that is or forecast to be a category 3+ hurricane is going to lead to mass evacuations. I remember well when Gloria became the largest US population from a storm, then it was Andrew, then it was Floyd, then it was Katrina, and now Ike. If you look at our vital article list, many of those hurricane articles mention they were the largest US evacuations from tropical cyclones up to that time. Population increases, particularly within 50 miles of the coast, are invariably going to lead to evacuation numbers to increase over the years. If we agree to continue only using the top 1 or 2 storms per basin in the core article section, Ike is ranked too low to make it, based upon any of these figures. Based upon deaths, assuming all of Ike's deaths were in the US (and they weren't), Ike would rank in the 20s. Is Ike vital to the project? Sure. Is it one of the top two Atlantic tropical cyclones of all time, no. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just some more extreme tropical cyclones: Mitch, Bhola cyclone, few other unnamed NIO cyclones, Tip, Gilbert, Hugo, Allen why can't people remember storms in the 70s 80s and 90s. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I'm divided if it deserves to be top, right now, but perhaps it'll be lowered over time. If there was a tropical cyclone encyclopedia released this year, inevitably it would have a section on Ike, due to the high (recent) interest in it. Ten years from now, in a more general encyclopedia, it probably wouldn't get the attention. Should we base importance on how important it is right now, or should it be based on how it would be judged from a time vacuum? If it is the former, then more recent storms would be considered more important; this is not necessarily a bad thing, since more recent storms do get a lot of attention. If it is the latter, then that means a more evenly distributed attention across the seasons, which also wouldn't be a bad thing. As usual, I can't make a decision, but I still want to put my own uncertainty into words. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A possible guide for article improvement

Now that the cat is out of the bag about article viewership within the project, perhaps this page can become a guide for which articles to improve to GA/FA next. I see that people want to rate importance by viewership, which is one way to do so. So why not improve the articles which the masses flock to most? It definitely looks like we were in line with the public need in the eastern Pacific. It's the Atlantic where our interests as a project don't overlap as well with the public need. Just a thought. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I'm going to do my FA's from now on. I'm pleasantly surprised to see the top 6 viewed EPAC articles are all featured, followed by three GA's and four more FA's. Granted, articles are viewed more because they are featured, but it's still a good way to look at things. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track map program.

If you are running Mac OS X, I strongly suggest you set this up on your computer. It's not really fair to have one or two people make all of them when it is so easy to get started yourself. The difficult part is formatting data into HURDAT format because of the amount of time this can consume. I can answer questions about Mac installations, but I can't help with other platforms. If you tried this before, maybe it was before Jdorje fixed it a few months ago. Potapych (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would install it on my computer but i dont think it works with Windows XP does it? Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'm using Mac OS X, can you lead me step by step on how to do it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article navigation template

User:Allstrak recently created {{Tropicalcyclone}} as an alternative to {{tropical cyclone}}, and has transcluded it onto a few articles. I personally like the idea of a collapsible navigation template, but I figured it should be brought here for discussion before substituting it in. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea as well though i would strongly recommend including links to the lists of historic cyclone names and the retired storms lists. Jason Rees (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wind is up for FAC

Although technically part of the broader meteorology project, I thought I'd let you all know that wind is up for FAC. I placed it in the template for this project, since it is related. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2004–05 South Pacific cyclone season

Is this really top-importance? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how you look at it. From a basin standpoint, it is. No other season has produced a spree of severe tropical cyclones like that before. The severity of damage has been considered historical in the Cook Islands and has even made it into books about the islands themselves. Regarding the other point of view, a worldwide one, it is high importance. Several WPac seasons have produced more Cat:5s in a month than the 04-05 SPac and have been substantially deadlier and damaging. The South Pacific generally has low death tolls and low damages due to the islands being small and lightly populated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we should be doing importance on a worldwide point of view. Should the most important storm in the SPAC really be considered as important as the most important storm in the NIO? I would certainly hope not. The SPAC has a total population of less than 10 million. The Atlantic has over 200 million (population of territories along the coast), and the NIO and WPAC are both higher than that. Or, we could end all of the discussion and get rid of the importance category. Don't kill me Tito! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this debate before, haven't we? Wikipedia would imply uniform standards should be used globally, but that standard would appear to favor more developed and populated countries such as the United States, China, Japan, and India, which in my point of view would introduce point of view issues concerning importance. I don't see an easy answer here. I'm leaning towards applying different standards for each basin, so the importance doesn't get unduly weighted towards Asian and North American tropical cyclones. Some of the wikipedia standards are contradictory, which has been noted in FAC recently. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you wrote it in small text tells me you already know what I think of that idea... :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, newspapers pay more attention to the more developed countries. It's more likely that a reader will be from one of those four articles. How can a South Pacific cyclone be considered more important than a North Indian cyclone? Although, that brings up the question which we haven't resolved. Is it importance to the project, or importance to Wikipedia in general? The page view stats show what storms are viewed more by Wikipedia overall. Should importance be roughly by page views, perhaps? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most objective criteria, and doesn't require us to hash out what wikipedia really means in its standards. I do not see us having a role in creating a wikipedia version of the mishna, which would take up precious time we could be using towards otherwise improving articles. I'm fine with the article views determining importance...we just have to check these from time to time and monitor changes, particularly to storms from 2008, that could be high/top importance now, but merely mid importance in a couple years. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific typhoon season articles

I thought it was settled that JMA information would be used from years 2000 and on, and JTWC would be the primary source from 1999 and earlier. (And it's not like you have any choice since JMA doesn't make earlier reports easily available if they even exist.) I noticed that pressure data in the infoboxes has been mixed up in a lot of those articles, so someone needs to go through them and fix them. Potapych (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which infoboxes you're speaking of. There are options in the storm infoboxes of using both sources of information, if you're merely talking about individual storms within the season article. Even though contentwise, using JTWC makes sense, it turns out that JMA has been the RSMC for some time. For the season boxes, we should probably be using JMA info back into the 1980s, unless we develop an option to use both sources of info, similar to the individual storm infoboxes within the season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The individual boxes have just one pressure and one wind reading displayed. The problem is that so many of these are mixed up between the different sources, and that they should all have the same source. RSMC doesn't matter too much since only JTWC has ALL the storms covered in the articles. You can't have severe tropical storms side-by-side super typhoons. That's what this project agreed on, but then I noticed the mix of data. Potapych (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A semantics time-out has been called. What do you mean by "individual boxes"? Some articles don't have a modern version of infoboxes for individual storms, which has been forced to be changed/upgraded for seasons which have undergone GAN. Check out the 1981-1986 Pacific typhoon seasons and see if the season articles you are working on use the same infoboxes. We need to be sure we're on the same page if this topic is going to be discussed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Individual boxes = individual infoboxes for each system. I took a quick glance at 1981 Pacific typhoon season and there are some problems there. There are no mentions of JMA but the pressures appear to be taken from there. The article should use one warning center for all the systems (and that is only possible to do with JTWC). Potapych (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&oldid=296841699"