Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:20, 24 June 2009

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]

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

12 Sep 2024 – Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Did you know

30 Aug 2024 – Severe Tropical Storm Lionrock (2010) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheNuggeteer (t · c); see discussion
26 Aug 2024 – Tropical Storm Kai-tak (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheNuggeteer (t · c); see discussion
24 Aug 2024 – Typhoon Nat (1991) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheNuggeteer (t · c); see discussion
23 Aug 2024 – Typhoon Virginia (1957) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheNuggeteer (t · c); see discussion

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

Hurricanehink

Atlantic - 1924 Cuba hurricane (new)
Eastern Pacific - Hurricane Tara (1961) (new)

Cyclonebiskit

Atlantic —
East Pacific — Hurricane Kiko (1989) (new)
Central Pacific —
Western Pacific —
Northern Indian Ocean —
Australia —
South Pacific — Cyclone Nancy (new)
South-West Indian —

Jason Rees

Atlantic —
East Pacific —
Central Pacific —
West Pacific — Tropical Storm Halong (2008)
South Pacific - Cyclone Zoe (Stub)
Australian —
Northern Indian Ocean - Cyclone Nisha (Start)
South-West Indian —

Juliancolton

Atlantic — 1993 Atlantic hurricane season
East Pacific — 1993 Pacific hurricane season
Central Pacific —
West Pacific —
South Pacific —
Australian —
North Indian —
South-West Indian —

HurricaneSpin

Atlantic —
East Pacific — 1980 Pacific hurricane season (Stub/Mid) User:HurricaneSpin/Sandbox1
Central Pacific —
West Pacific —
South Pacific —
Australian —
North Indian —
South-West Indian —

Hurricane Angel Saki

North Atlantic — Tropical Storm Amelia (1978) (Start/Mid)
East Pacific — Tropical Storm Octave (1983) (New)
Central Pacific — Hurricane Uleki (1988) (New)
West Pacific —
South Pacific —
Australian — Cyclone Monty (New)
North Indian —
South-West Indian —

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 —

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]

I would say Ike is a High. It's not Top, but it's more of a Gilbert-type storm, as it did cause large devastation in a urban area (Gilbert did it in Cancún, Ike in Galveston). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:48, 7 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]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:51, 17 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]

I consider the using of collapsible templates as a disease which should strongly be fighted against. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why - wats wrong with them? Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jason. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pleas be clear about what you want to say, and don't compare it with an disease ^All _strak^{(Talks page!)} 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Wikipedia is to show contents not to hide them behind a bunch of collapsable and clickable switches. Second: I am not sure, whether they meet with all needs for Accessibility, see also Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling_and_collapsible_sections. I therefore think they should not be used at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:32, 11 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]

We agreed a while back to use all relevant information, because the differences seen between JMA and JTWC are not mere adjustments for 1 to 10 minute sustained winds, which resolved disputes within the project. Otherwise, why would those infoboxes be designed that way? As long as the JMA info is in there, that's all that really matters, since they are the RSMC. Ask hurricanehink about it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. The pressures from JTWC were removed from some of the infoboxes and replaced with ones from the JMA. That causes a lot of inconsistencies, especially since the project had decided to do the pre-2000 articles from JTWC's perspective thanks to the dearth of information from JMA for that era (and also the lack of coverage for many named systems). I don't like how some of the boxes display the 10 minute value and some display the 1-min value, but that's because the 10 minute values take priority over the 1-minute values. (Maybe someone will fix that one day). Potapych (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of nominating this at TfD because it does not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with JMA's system of numbering. There is no explanation to be found near the template, and I don't think one of these should be created for every season. Potapych (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily be fixed. I'll take a look. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's in chronological order, so I'm not sure how it could be viewed as confusing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 31 storms listed and only 22 buttons. You have to remember that most people have no idea what these numbers are for. Potapych (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dissagree a button bar is needed for evrey season as they all could potentally be turned into Featured Topics with them all needing to be linked - Also thats not an excuse to go and TFD it as we have valid reasons for using the number JMA assigns when a depression is upgraded - The names are to simular to each other. Jason Rees (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean you disagree that they're not needed? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potapych, these templates are for easy access to articles, it's still under construction as Jason is working on rewriting the article, adding the missing JMA TDs in the process. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even do that. There are two articles - Tropical Depression Gener (2008) and Tropical Storm Kika (2008) - that are not included. So, it is not a full list of links and it relies on a numbering system that doesn't make sense to most readers. To make things more confusing, there are 31 storms (which are numbered by the TOC) and only 22 buttons. Potapych (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not a reason to delete the template. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a reason to look at the template and see how we can improve on it, and I agree that it is far from ideal in its current form. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I agree with Jason that a navigational aid of some sort is needed, so deleting the template while it can be fixed seems to be, at least to me, a non-starter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some didn't agree with using letters and changed it to numbers. I think using numbers is unsatisfactory (and more confusing), so it's at a complete stalemate. Who says buttons are the answer? If not, then this template isn't needed and it could be deleted. Potapych (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: what about something collapsible in the Infobox? Just look at a random Simpsons episode - it has all of the episodes in a season neatly at the top. That way, we could put the full name in, and avoid the numbers and letters completely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potapych, why the extremes? Keep or it must go? Seriously, compromise on improving things before attempting to destroy them. We used numbers because our original plan of using letters backfired with Kalmaegi and Kammuri last year. By both way, using the first and second letter or first letter of the syllables, they're the same, so going by number worked much better. Hurricanehink, how would that be formatted in individual storm articles? it seems a bit silly as when opened, it can mess up an article quite easily. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDK how it would be formatted, but at least it's something different from the button bars, which I personally never liked. Would it hurt to try it and discuss it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wouldn't hurt to discuss a collapsible infobox ;) Discuss away hink. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how I proposed - the list of storms would be collapsible, with links to each storm. We could make sure the images are left-aligned where it looks messy. IDK, anyone else have any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain someone will put that on their lists of objections if one of those articles ever shows up for FAN. No one has ever asked a normal reader if they could figure it out. It is certainly not extreme because you are supposed to delete unused templates. Potapych (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that the template is being used, it's in every article related to the season. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used in 20+ articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm listing in Infobox

Check it out. I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution to the button bar problem, but I like it more than the button bars, which I do feel are confusing. There could be some tweaking, but I really like this approach of listing the storms in the Infobox. Yes, that would mean making a template for each season, but I really don't think we need one of those if it's a season with only one article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Infoboxes are meant for quick information and not to substitute navigation templates. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that the case? I already mentioned above the Simpsons episode, which I think works very well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it would work as not all TCs are worthy of an article and would become too long in some of the PTS. Jason Rees (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storms without articles can pipe-link to their respective sections in the season article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, they just wouldn't be linked. The button bar does the same thing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to point out that there exists the this WikiProject which works on facilating the use of infobox contents as databases. See for example this table. Mixing in navigation elements would make the data provided in the hurricane infoboxes useless. (However I must ask Kolossos if something went wrong with the EN:WP data daump since it seems very much truncated in this moment, the linked table is based on a dump from last year, but many templates don't appear on the latest list.) --Matthiasb (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does not result in a different appearing of articles we should keep the parameter entries of the small hurricane infoboxes in the same order, as per documentation Basin/Image/Track/Formed/Dissipated/1-min winds/Pressure (with the modification where applicable). In many instances trackmap or sat image are included following the pressure or other data. That makes controlling of such articles harder.

Related to this I wonder why sometimes those parameters are not included already when a depression develops but editors seem to add them in rather, after trackmaps and/or satellite images are available. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was originally designed to keep the same parameter names as {{Infobox Hurricane}}, so that we could just add "small" to the template name and it would render properly. I'm not sure if someone has changed it since then... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 ::::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)
 :::::We agreed a while back to use all relevant information, because the differences seen between JMA and JTWC are not mere adjustments for 1 to 10 minute sustained winds, which resolved disputes within the project.  Otherwise, why would those infoboxes be designed that way?  As long as the JMA info is in there, that's all that really matters, since they are the RSMC.  Ask hurricanehink about it.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
+::::::That's not what I meant. The pressures from JTWC were removed from some of the infoboxes and replaced with ones from the JMA. That causes a lot of inconsistencies, especially since the project had decided to do the pre-2000 articles from JTWC's perspective thanks to the dearth of information from JMA for that era (and also the lack of coverage for many named systems). I don't like how some of the boxes display the 10 minute value and some display the 1-min value, but that's because the 10 minute values take priority over the 1-minute values. (Maybe someone will fix that one day). [[User:Potapych|Potapych]] ([[User talk:Potapych|talk]]) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 == {{tl|2008 Pacific typhoon season buttons}} ==