Talk:2015 Pacific hurricane season

Time zones

For now, I have listed 1E (now Andres) using PDT, but its first public advisory uses MDT, and states that the use of local time zones will now be used for the first time this year. Should we continue using PDT or start using whatever time zone is indicated by the public advisory?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Just saying and keep in mind. Please next time, when a new storm develops and create an infobox and its information please use the correct dates as you did to 01E a while ago. You did May 29, however it's still May 28. Unless you are a time traveler! Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: It's late for me, so I ask that you forgive this error (I usually don't make them). Also, case in point: PDT is no longer the only timezone in public advisories in this basin. What do you think?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I just said keep in mind for future storms. For the time zones you are talking about... I am not really a person who edits in the Pacific hurricane seasons (soz), but I will try this year and as much as I can. I might possibly stay with PDT or the normal version in the E Pacifc. Ask @Yellow Evan: since he likes the E Pacific. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. We should use what the actual Public Advisory says, so if local time zones is a new thing, then so be it. Dustin (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Use what the public advisory uses. We do it with CPHC AOR storms (in HST) and in the Atlantic. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Then we should perhaps add a note to the article mentioning this new practice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but is it necessary? Maybe on timeline articles, but at least here, it doesn't seem to be necessary. Dustin (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No need for a note, but IMO add it to the seasonal summary section of this article and to the lead in the timeline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Andres's peak intensity

Do we go by NHC or the best track? If we go by NHC advisories, it will be 95 knots (90 knots at 21Z and 95 knots at 03Z). But if we go by the operational best track it should be 100 knots (a major hurricane).Krit-tonkla ^talk 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

We go by advisories until the TCR comes out (or if the monthly summary upgrades it). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What Hink said...also, track maps will be adjusted from the operational best track to match the advisory intensities to avoid confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to seem underinformed... maybe I haven't been around for long enough, but what is your source for this operational best track? Dustin (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Krit-tonkla ^talk 04:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So what about JTWC? I do not want to give the NHC the special treatment when it comes to operational best tracks. Supportstorm (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: Are the JTWC and the NHC different? What sources are you looking at? Both are administered by the United States. Dustin (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The JTWC and NHC are run by different U.S. programs. In any basin aside from East Pacific and North Atlantic this Wikipedia project uses JTWC operational best track for intensity. However, we do not use the NHC best track. I'm questioning why when both organizations issue advisories and best tracks that we choose one over the other in different basins. Supportstorm (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the problem with the NHC is that its advisories use the 03/09/15/21z intensity which can be different from the the BT's 00/06/12/18z. Krit-tonkla ^talk 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? Andres took care of business by becoming a major, so it's less of an issue. Thank the storm :P Also, NHC is the RMSC for the EPAC and ATL, so that takes priority over the JTWC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping the storm would dissipate because I may possibly lose internet access after today. Dustin (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, BTW. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't want to miss anything. Maybe things will change, here; I really don't know. Dustin (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So can I use the BT for track maps now? Krit-tonkla ^talk 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Andres has peaked at 125 knots for now officially. But the NHC said in the discussion package it peaked at 130 knots. Should we go with 125 peak or 130 peak? I'd assume 125, but don't care either way. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Id go 130 kts since thats what NHC said it peaked at and is probably what the RBT's will show. I will also remind people that the Running Best Tracks is advertised in every single TCR produced by NHC these days, as a result i do not see the problem with using it for 5-10 kt increases after the fact even if it means an upgrade to Cat 3 or 5.Jason Rees (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe mention both? Something like - "The NHC upgraded Andres to a peak of 145 mph, although they noted that winds could have reached 150 mph at 09:00 UTC." Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They didn't say it could have been. They said estimated. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The word estimated in my book means that its 130 kts not 125 kts, since we are mainly estimating the windspeeds rather than saying for certain.Jason Rees (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this. Most values for Andres have been estimated given the lack of a reconnaissance aircraft. I changed the article a while ago to reflect 130kt. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too; the change isn't a difference of category so it's not a big deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree on using 130 kt as well, for now at least. I'll ask around the office tomorrow once the media frenzy for the start of the Atlantic season dies down and see what they say just to be sure. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean ask around the NHC? Do you work with the NHC somehow? Dustin (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He probably means sending emails (I think). United States Man (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Cyclonebikit works there. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but what is he doing? I mean, what for? If it is too personal or something, no response is necessary. Dustin (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

← I'm working with Dr. Landsea on the Atlantic reanalysis project, currently finishing up the last few storms of 1964. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Wow, didn't know that. Must be a fun and interesting job. United States Man (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please limit the off topic talk on this page per wiki rules and generally confine it to the various Facebook TC Groups (AHS, PHS, PTS, IOTCS, SPTCS, etc). Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you don't have to be so rude. It's not like this is commonplace. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@United States Man: Its not being rude to remind people of the wiki rules, especially when this topic has already gone off topic once. I would like it if we could get back to the topic in hand and figure out if we should use the RBT on a regular basis in all basins. My personal feeling is that we should since the RBT is updated every six hours in all basins, rather than the mixture of 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 hourly advisories that we currently get from the United States Warning Centres.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with going a little off-tropic, and this didn't truly cross the line, it just can't turn into a 10kb discussion about what we do for a living. Either way, it appears we all agree with using 130. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that since the NHC explicitly stated the the peak was at 130 knots, then it is a good idea to use that. As Jasper Deng said above, it doesn't make any difference in the category anyway. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we be concerned that the Running Best Track doesn't have 130 kt? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because since it is weakening, there is no point in updating the ATCF, since the persistence input in the SHIPS model is more or less the same. And FYI, they said it peaked at 130 knts at 9z, which is between the 6z and 12z updates. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Storm names

In the past, the actual storm titles have been included and not just their names (at least in the EPac and Atl). Jasper Deng is the person who first added the infobox for what is now Andres, and he just put Two-E in the infobox (without the "Tropical Depression" part of the storm's title). I don't remember him being here last year, so I can't say anything about previous instances of him in particular, but at least last year in the Pacific, we always included "Tropical Depression", "Tropical Storm", and "Hurricane" in the infoboxes. I have been reverted twice by Typhoon2013/Nino Marakot, and as a result, I am forced to bring this to the talk page. Maybe you don't have to change it, but the full title of 01E is "Hurricane Andres", not just "Andres", and if I am willing to take the time to change it when the storm later weakens, what is the purpose in re-removing the "Tropical Depression/Tropical Storm/Hurricane" from the infobox? Dustin (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters either way... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't. I was just following the convention in the west Pacific where only the names, not the storm types, were in the infoboxes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It won't be there after the storm is gone anyways...—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree more with @Dustin V. S.:. Since I also edited in the 2014 PHS last year for active storms, the infoboxes include the name and the storm type (TD, TS, H). It is more better to stay that way. However as @TropicalAnalystwx13: said, it doesn't matter really. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Blanca article???

Hi. I might start a "start-off" article for Hurricane Blanca sometime later. Since it is going to make landfall soon (maybe) and its an early landfalling storm, I believe Blanca does suppose to have an article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Whether or not Blanca gets an article will primarily depend on how significant its impacts are. It might be better to start out by just expanding Hurricane Blanca's section before starting an article. Those are just my thoughts, though. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Ok. Otherwise I'll just wait for 1-2 more days. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have what will hopefully eventually turn into a possible Blanca article later on (appears to have played its way into an article, but there could be unknown unknowns, I realize it's just a c/p of the season section right now). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Blanca image

Hi. What I am really annoyed about storm images are the size. That's why I changed the real Blanca image to a better size, and yes it does sucks if the image is not in gallery version. However Dustin reverted me because it's not in gallery version (which the gallery version is at a small size). There are three choices, unless we fix the size of it, find another photo at peak intensity (luckily Blanca made a second peak), or just keep searching a better Blanca image. If we just leave it alone, it kind of sucks with the image of Blanca being the smallest (maybe). What do you guys think of Blanca's image? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: The gallery version of the Blanca image is larger, not smaller. If it appears smaller, then it is not the image, but the infobox which is responsible. Nevertheless, I did upload a partly cropped version to fit slightly better. I know it's probably not what you wanted, but I cannot do much better without cutting off part of the storm or losing image quality. Dustin (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: I don't know how to crop images since I should say that I am still new, but if it's ok to make the image just the same as Andres' image size. If you've already done it and I haven't seen it, thank you. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to avoid horizontally cropped images from the MODIS gallery. It really annoys me that they started that practice. Anyway when this happens just do what Dustin did. Crop it to fit a vertical profile if applicable. Supportstorm (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Names for CPac

I feel we are running out of names - what if we do? Do we make a whole article then? Do we ask TWC or NOAA for names? What will we do?? 71.66.245.204 (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are eight names left on the current list of names for the Central Pacific. Once that's exhausted, they'll go back to the first list. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We aren't. CPHC uses a rotating list of names. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Todo

Lately, I don't see that much people updating on current TCs in this page. No one edited / updated the infobox during Hilda. Just saying that I am a person who only edits in the WPac pages, however I'm interested in the CPac page which is a page like this. Also since this year is predicted to be a 'hyperactive' season especially when we broke the record of having the most Central Pacific named storms by tomorrow (maybe), we need to contribute and help this article become a good one like the rest. I mean, we need to add more information to make the article look good. @Yellow Evan: and @Iune:, I thought you were the guys who always edit in the EPac pages? Also Iune, why didn't you edit anything on TS Iune last month? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'm new to this, I'm gonna try and help out when I manage to learn how to edit stuff properly. I'm really super interested in TCs though :( Izmik (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Izmik: Ok, so welcome! Be a member of our project, the Wikiproject Tropical cyclones! Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have spent virtually no time on wiki the past year or so, and don't like recent seasonal articles anyways. I know TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) in years past has kept the season articles up to date. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. At least TropicalAnalystwx13 is doing a great job so far when Kilo formed. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Did I update Loke's infoboxthingy properly? I just did one for Danny too. Izmik (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Izmik: Not quite, close though. However the CPHC upgraded Loke back to a tropical storm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Sorry but I've been very busy lately so I can't find much time to edit... KN2731 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I might be wrong but looking at the CPHC's hurricane map it looks like Loke came closer to the Aluetian Islands than the person that made the track map gave credit for. Not sure, but was just checking into it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.179.89 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kilo

Is Kilo the first CPac named storm that became a major hurricane since Iniki? HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo: No, the most recent storm that became a major hurricane in the CPHC was Neki in 2009.

To-do 2

We need a section for Ignacio and Kevin, plus sources for some other sections. I'll try to help out with current storms if they come along so others can help update other stuff, but I have school stuff. Izmik (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marty section is empty!?

Hello editors of this page, I was looking at this page just for fun. I went down and I saw that the Hurricane Marty section was completely empty! I decided to check the page history to see what happened and who removed it but I did not find any history match. What happened? If anyone has an answer to this question please reply below this comment or on my talk page. Thanks, 50.141.33.0 (talk)/73.223.175.207 (talk) (Both IP adresses are mine.) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has written anything for it yet, no content was ever removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

But when I looked at this page a few days ago, I saw a lot of information in that area. I don't understand why there is nothing now. - 50.141.33.0 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.35.17 (talk)

That was probably the "current storm information" section which is removed once the storm dissipates. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll try to add stuff in all of the storm sections by the start of next year. I am just really busy and currently working out for the 2015 PTS article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Is plagiarism a problem?

Hi guys, I just wanted to confirm if plagiarism is a problem on Wikipedia. I wanted to check because for the Hurricane Marty section I copied almost exactly as it was written in the reference. If it is a problem, someone please reword the sentences. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 season now the second active/busiest? Or tied with 1985?

According to the table in the List of Pacific hurricanes, 2015 is now the second busiest within the basin. However is it tied with 1985? Well the number of named storms and hurricanes have the same amount in both seasons, however there are more M. hurricanes this year. So is it really the second busiest, which makes 1985 now third? Or do we follow the amount of named storms? *At least it is likely to be second because models predict Rick forming during Nov. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is tied with 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Busiest is generally defined on wiki is most named storms. So 2015 is tied for second with 1985. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Time for an article on Hurricane Patricia (2015)

A category 5 hurricane heading straight into Mexico is noteworthy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's being worked on by someone else AFAIK. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Being the strongest hurricane on record stronged that typhoon tip 3rd strongest and hurrican whilma 2ed strongest on record it needs a article

Hurricane Patricia

It's incredible that at this time yesterday, Patricia was only a tropical storm. I think it is a custom of sorts that Category 5 hurricanes in the East Pacific have articles written about them, and this cyclone looks to not only be intense but destructive as well. It might be a bit premature, but it may be worth establishing this as the primary topic of Hurricane Patricia. Thoughts? Drafts in the works? Dustin (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that Hurricanehink has followed through. Thanks! I'm sorry to say that I won't be able to do much to help on this until mid-Saturday, I think. Dustin (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm on making the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay good, thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)