Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juliancolton (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 18 September 2023 (→‎Requested move: new title convention for Effects of (tropical cyclone) in (region) articles: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Templates for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured topic removal candidates

Good article reassessments

Articles to be merged

(2 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)

Project notes

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]

Strongest storm

2023 Atlantic hurricane season keeps getting its strongest storm changed and me, User:Hurricanehink, and User:Drdpw have expressed interest in the changing of what defines the strongest storm. It is mostly based on the premise that people don't read footnotes and comments and that in our experience, strongest storm usually correlates to wind speed. While I'm not sure about the views of other editors (or how it could be coded), I think that we should have three strongest storm categories: one for intensity, one for windspeed, and one for when there is one storm with both highest windspeed and intensity. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having three different categories seems a bit excessive, and bulky. The infobox would be overcrowded for one. I'm not sure why our practice is to measure a storm's intensity by its barometric pressure rather than its wind speed (perhaps another editor can provide further insight there). I'm not really sure there's an easy solution to changing the infobox to measure by wind speed rather than pressure unless there's a consensus to do so. Gumballs678 talk 03:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a way to include both the strongest by wind speed and most intense by pressure in the season infoboxes when not the same storm, as happens in many seasons. Our practice of measuring tropical cyclone strength by pressure has generated confusion and controversy across several articles, and is out of sync with with various meteorological agencies worldwide, which determine tropical cyclone strength by wind speed. And more broadly, in media and common conversation, wind speeds equate with strength, not barometric pressure. (See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 48#Two Proposals Concerning Listing Tropical Cyclone Strength) Drdpw (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t disagree. Maybe “strongest storm” can still exist, and then if a scenario such as the one in this current season arises, we can have strongest by wind and strongest by pressure, that way both areas are covered and it clears confusion. If it doesn’t occur, meaning it’s clear that the strongest storm of the season is X and not Y, then we can keep the separate designations hidden. Gumballs678 talk 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a better way to do it. But it's really just so that we can say who the most intense, windiest, and both ones. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of measuring intensity, wind speed, and the categories associated with them, is used as it is the easiest way to convey information about a storm to the public. However, a storm's overall intensity is better represented by its pressure, which includes other things like size and structure, and determines its location and movement. I know this isn't much, but I hope it helps. ChessEric 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric Would it hurt to have effectively two strongest storm sections, one half for pressure and another for wind speed? ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. If it gets rid of the confusion, I'm all for it. ChessEric 19:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would alleviate confusion and controversy generated across several articles. Drdpw (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone with coding skills have the ability to do a mock-up for the 2022 AHS to demonstrate this? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to via MS paint but I don't even know where templates are coded. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mockup for what the Strongest section could look like.
I made a really rough sketch in MS paint of what I was thinking it could look like. The values are not right. The font will obviously be more correct with the template. Wording may also change. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but do we necessarily need to include winds for the storm with minimum pressure, or the pressure for the storm with maximum winds? I might just have the storm name and the appropriate value for each strength rating. — Iunetalk 16:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to see an example of an RSMC determining the strongest storm for a season by windspeed, before we implement this proposal as I feel it's just going to cause more agro then its worth for those editors who edit season articles outside of NHC/CPHC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited examples were provided in last year's thread showing that meteorological agencies around the world use wind speed rather than central pressure. So, given today's common practice of determining tropical cyclone strength based on wind speed, who are we to to use our own standard for declaring "X Storm" as the "Strongest Storm?" Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: Those citations do not show that the RSMC's use windspeeds to determine what the strongest storm was though which is what i asked for as otherwise I believe that we would be committing original research to say that X was the strongest storm when they say Y was based on the pressure.Jason Rees (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the other basins can just use the "generic" current system while the hurricane seasons can use this new system. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch199811: Nice try at getting around my comments but since the NHC is an RSMC, my comments about seeing a source from the RSMC's stating that X was the strongest storm based on the winds when they say Y was based on the pressure still apply.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our saying, for example, that Fiona was the strongest Atlantic hurricane in 2022 is original research as no reliable secondary sources make that claim. Sources do state that Ian was the strongest. Likewise, our saying that the unnamed January subtropical storm is currently the strongest Atlantic storm in 2023 is original research for the same reason. Drdpw (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see links to these sources that state that Ian was the strongest system of last years Atlantic hurricane season, however, I am not sure how relevent these are since if NHC says that Fiona was the strongest then its the strongest not Ian which is why i asked for an example from the RSMC itself.Jason Rees (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This states that Ian was the 5th strongest to impact the US. I'm not sure if it is based on pressure or wind speed (or if it includes the territories) but it's something. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really as it doesnt state that Ian was the strongest system of last years Atlantic hurricane season, which is what you need to prove before I agree that a change to the infobox that is going to impact at least 500 articles is needed.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the NHC doesn't use strongest storm, or at least I couldn't find it. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only times I could find the NHC use it (e.g. here) is when the storm is both intense and has higher winds like with Isabel being described as the strongest since Mitch. Looking deeper into the article, it does look like they use pressure to describe strongest but in the search for definition of strongest, I also came across many articles that use wind speeds or even deaths. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to death, is not going to be very accurate in terms of determining the strength of a storm; there have been multiple instances where a system that was "weak" (in terms of pressure or windspeed) have caused a large amount of deaths in the past. There is just no way to put an accurate measure on what a storm will do, they're highly unpredictable.
In regards to the infobox, I question if it is truly necessary for all of the articles? Considering the amount of confusion regarding what should be used, not to mention that some articles use the barometric pressure rather than windspeed. While I understand that most people equate storm strength with windspeed, the problem is that in many cases, the only way to accurately get a measure of the strength of a system is through using windspeed AND pressure together. I would definitely support an infobox if the NHC or similar reputable source says what the strongest system was, however it is borderline OR to assume the strongest system ourselves. The only issue I have with having both a category for pressure and for windspeed in the infobox, is that again it might create some confusion. We need to consider the average reader who might not know everything about tropical cyclones, wind speeds, ETC, there is a good chance that they would be confused as to why there are two different storms that are listed as the "strongest," rather than one. That won't happen every season of course, but some years, like now, where we have Don and the unnamed SS, it is not so clear cut, not to mention that some editors might not read the footnotes or comments in the article. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After digging through the NHC and JMA's websites and not finding any pages pertaining to how to measure the strongest tropical cyclone per season, I feel the best solution here is to email an RSMC directly, most likely the NHC, to find out how they specifically measure the strongest tropical cyclone of each season. I know we've inquired to the NHC before about how to accurately report info on Wikipedia (such as when Hurricane Noah did so during the Amanda-Cristobal dispute). JayTee🕊️ 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that violate OR due to it being unpublished? ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with all things in Wikipedia, we need to go with what reliable secondary sources state. None have called either the unnamed January system or Don the strongest, therefore, any declaration we make about which storm is the strongest would technically be OR. The broader issue is that we declare a given storm as strongest apart from reliable secondary sources. Also, we have a specific way of determining which system is strongest – minimum barometric pressure alone (not wind speed), which we adhere to regardless of what those sources might say. Furthermore, we base our practice on the premise that, Most meteorological organizations rate the intensity of a storm by this figure, so the lower the minimum pressure of the storm, the more intense or "stronger" it is considered to be. Apparently no meteorological agency officially takes such a stance.
And today I came across an article about Hurricane Dora: "The small-sized hurricane had obtained status as the strongest cyclone of the season so far".(Link). Not explicitly stated, but, given that barometric pressure is not mentioned anywhere, the writer used wind speed in acclaiming Dora as strongest.
Given all this, our current practice probably needs to be reevaluated, and perhaps altered in instances where the strongest system by wind speed is different than the strongest by pressure. Drdpw (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have reliable sources describing strength by both pressure and wind, I feel like we can invoke WP:CALC for the info box if we ended up listing both. We still would need sources if it was something like the most intense storm on record in the basin, but that would probably be cited in the text of the article anyway. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They did explicitly state that in the header for Patricia's advisories iirc. NoahTalk 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify; are you reffering to the fact that Patricia was strongest by wind speeds accross the world, by intensity in the basin, or something else? ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the 4am advisory on October 23, "Data from three center fixes by the Hurricane Hunters indicate that the intensity, based on a blend of 700 mb-flight level and
SFMR-observed surface winds, is near 175 kt. This makes Patricia the strongest hurricane on record in the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Atlantic and the eastern North Pacific basins. The minimum central pressure estimated from the aircraft data, 880 mb, is the lowest ever for our AOR." Gumballs678 talk 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this from a 2017 wrbl.com article: Hurricane Allen (1980) is the strongest hurricane on record in the Atlantic Basic (if including Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) with max sustained wind speed of 190 mph. The strongest hurricane on record in the world is Hurricane Patricia (2015) with 1-minute max sustained wind at 213 mph. … One way to measure the intensity of a hurricane is through atmospheric pressure. In the most basic sense, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the more intense the hurricane. … The lowest pressure in a hurricane ever recorded is 870 mb from Typhoon Tip in October 1979 – which impacted the Philippines. Drdpw (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything from out of the NHC and CPHC AORs like the Bureau of Meteorology? I might be able to look for info regarding the southern hemisphere's agencies but I wouldn't be able to check the Japan Meteorological Agency unless they have it translated. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BOM uses strongest reffering to winds, though it is typically specified that it is winds they are talking about (e.g. [1], [2]). Extending my search to Australia in general, I found this article that just gave generic terms relating to strongest like "one of the". Qatari news source, Al Jazeera [3], describes Ilsa being the strongest to hit the continent in a decade but I am pretty sure it beat the next place with both.
As for Meteo-Francais, [4] makes it look like they say that intensity is judged by wind speed. Further on it says that you use lowest pressure to estimate wind speed. Later it says that typhoon TIP and typhoon WILMA had the lowest pressures worldwide and in the Atlantic. And, if I am reading this right, it says NANCY has the most violent winds world wide, with CAMILLE then ALLEN for the Atlantic. Overall, it looks like the French world has multiple definitions of strength (supported by fr.wiki's infobox for the Atlantic basin). ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about labeling “lowest pressure” and “highest sustained winds” instead of strongest storm? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gather, it might be confusing and over the top and violate OR, though no one has opposed anything recently. I am going to ping @Jason Rees and CycloneFootball71 to see if their opinions changed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should use both. We are contradicting NHC when we rank by pressure in their basins since they rank by winds (for example, ranking Hurricane Marie (2014) as tied for fourth- (now fifth-)strongest in the basin by its winds, not sixth- (now seventh-) strongest by pressure), and many media sources use winds. It would help reduce confusion a lot, and one more infobox parameter for a season is hardly any clutter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone agrees for changing since the straw poll started. Does anyone want (or know how) to implement it? ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on adding a new option for infoboxes

Jasper Deng has implemented the decision. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For seasons when the storm with the lowest pressure is different than the one with the highest sustained winds, do you support adding parameters to the infobox for both the lowest pressure and highest sustained winds?

Yes –
No –
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation

I have implemented the changes in {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} per the above consensus. Please assist with migrating all seasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jasper Deng! ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season has two strongest by wind speeds but only one by pressure. I have left as is for now as the infobox didn't like me and it broke. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as well Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)! I'm glad we can now be done with this bit of discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track maps of systems (NHC)

(This is specifically regarding Atlantic, east Pacific, and central Pacific tracks where the NHC has jurisdiction over.) User created tracks for tropical cyclones can be difficult to understand quickly for readers looking up a specific storm/hurricane. The legend for the colored plots on the map (blue triangles, light blue dots, etc.) are located below the image rather than in the image itself. To elaborate how this could be an issue is that for example it makes sharing the image outside of Wikipedia futile without adding a ton of context and legends. Another problem with these track maps is that the map uses an equirectangular projection which can warp the track of a post-tropical storm heading far north (take Hurricane Faith in 1966 as an example.) Yet more problems are present because the tracks aren’t specific on intensity and are rather broad. For example, the tracks do not specify exactly where the storm had peaked in intensity, how low the pressure was and where it occurred, and how fast exactly the wind speeds were. For a new reader, this would be difficult for some to unpack and understand. Another problem is that when a system is over remote and open waters, the track could have very little to zero indication on its position, forcing readers to look at the summary map to get an idea on its location. A solution to this issue would be using official NHC tracks where they include legends in the track maps rather than somewhere outside the image, points of interest in the track (such as peak intensity), a more globe-like map projection to avoid track warping, borders of countries/states/provinces to make it clearer on its location and latitudes and longitudes for exact positioning, time points to show what time it was when the system changed course and/or intensity, dates to show what day it was when the system was at a certain point and intensity, and a more elaborate line of track when a system was for example, a disturbance or a tropical wave. Informative and official tracks should be prioritized and used (if possible) over the user created tracks. KatoSlipping (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoSlipping: This discussion clearly established consensus for the current map, and in the same discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Colour discussions, the colors used on the map were argued about for a year and a half before we finally found a good way to do it. I do think, though, that for new users, the legend is not easy to find, and agree that it should be changed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this and won't give a support or oppose, but I will point out the discussion that you say "clearly established consensus for the current map" did not have an option for NHC maps. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KatoSlipping: These maps are meant for cross-language usage, so English text on them is not practical by any means. We could add language-independent text such as peak intensity numbers, but would need to find a way to do so without undue clutter, and different regional preferences for units still makes it impractical (though not as much as the language factor). The standard map projection even in official NHC maps is the same as our maps so there is no need to change the projection (every map projection will have distortion because a spheroidal ellipsoid is not isometric to any flat surface, so there is no way to avoid any "track warping"). Also, the NHC maps are not much better and might have licensing issues. Meanwhile, political borders can cause issues regarding WP:NPOV because of territory disputes, so we should avoid them (they might not be an issue that often here but other wikis might take a bigger issue). Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cyclone Jobo

This has recently reappeared as a draft. I have assessed it against the project's criteria to the best of my ability and declined it for the moment. Please will knowledgeable editors check my work. I am content with whatever outcome you achieve. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on a personal basis, I see that there were at least 23 deaths associated with the system, which is more than enough for a tropical cyclone article to exist, however, I would note that the article needs a lot of work and seems to just be a C & P of the blurb in the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees My concern was that "Flooding killed 22 people." may not be sufficient to meet this project's criteria for severity. I was unconcerned with the duplication of the text because that can be handled post acceptance (if any).
I am content that the draft be accepted or moved directly to mainspace and tidied, if it meets the project's criteria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for Discussion

Invest 93L and Invest 93L (2023) have been listed at RfD as the targets of these redirects are highly misleading owing to the fact that the same designations are used multiple times each year. United States Man (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMA track maps

I just submitted a pull request including support for using the JMA's best track files available at [5] in a HURDAT-analogous manner. Since we always prefer RSMC data we should use these maps in WPAC articles. They can live on Commons like SSHWS maps because their (numerical) data is PD. However, we need to be consistent so we need to answer the following:

  1. What naming convention should we use for them? I propose "Mawar 2023 JMA path.png"
  2. How should we use them in articles? Notably, JMA does not have an operational best track, so these maps could only be made several months after each storm when their best track is made. However, our preference for RSMC data suggests that they should be shown first, with potentially a toggle for a user to see SSHWS (or display both maps, but that is impractical for {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}}).

Whichever way we will need a map key too. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the #2 I have a mockup at User talk:Jasper Deng/sandbox with Mawar as the example. It makes use of MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher but has the undesirable side effect of making the infobox get wider suddenly when you select "Show all". It might be necessary to modify the gadget to allow us to disable that option.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on effects of Hurricane titles

Recently, the article Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England was moved to Hurricane Sandy in New England. An RM to move it back failed, with a recommendation to open an RFC on the topic of if the “Effects of” is necessary or should be dropped. Should every article listed in Category:Effects of hurricanes in the United States, Category:Effects of tropical cyclones and the four Katrina subarticles (Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Florida, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Alabama, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi and Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) be moved to the new format? 160.72.80.50 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs can’t be used for page titles per WP:RFCNOT. Noah, AATalk 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC was suggested, also while it does affect page titles, it’s also a new change for similarly titled page, and no one was willing to start a batch RM for 78 pages. If you oppose this being an RFC, please start such a batch RM.160.72.80.50 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Faith needs to be updated

Hello! I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to put this here, but here we go.

With the release of HURDAT2, Hurricane Faith's article has become outdated, especially the section regarding its meteorological history. The data shown in HURDAT2 contradicts what is written in the article. Though I wish I myself could edit the article, I am busy with schoolwork, and may not even be qualified to edit said article. -Shift674-🌀 contribs 19:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: new title convention for Effects of (tropical cyclone) in (region) articles

– Recently, Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England was moved to Hurricane Sandy in New England. A discussion took place at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England#Requested move 21 August 2023 on whether the title should be moved back per WP:CONSISTENT, and it ended with a consensus that the new title (without "Effects of") was preferred to the old title as it improves WP:CONCISION without sacrificing clarity. The discussion also showed some support for changing the existing title convention, i.e. dropping the "Effects of" prefix. Since it's been advised above that a batch RM is more appropriate than an RfC in this situation, I'm opening a combined RM here for the 31 articles in Category:Effects of tropical cyclones, 43 (other) articles in Category:Effects of hurricanes in the United States, and the 4 region-specific articles in Category:Effects of Hurricane Katrina. (If I've missed anything that isn't in these categories, please help add them in.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Effects of the 2020 North Indian Ocean cyclone season in India, Effects of the 2009 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines and Effects of the 2013 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines, which might be affected by this. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added those three since the same line of argument would apply (merits of which can be debated below); also noting an IP added Effects of Hurricane Ida in the Northeastern United States about 12 hours ago. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support per proposal.
Noah, AATalk 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These feel weird to me. It's especially noticeable with ones like 1919 Florida Keys hurricane in Texas, which just feels confusing (why is the Florida Keys hurricane in Texas?), but even on the named storms, I think it just reads wrong. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambiguity is a problem I think applies to all of these with the change, or at least any with other storms under the same name. For, say, Hurricane Isaac in Florida, is that disambiguating from the 2018 hurricane that hit the Caribbean instead (which would make it target the main article)? To us, we have the context, but to a reader who searches Hurricane Isaac? (I think I sit as a weak oppose for now. Concision is important, but the titles just read wrong and I think have slight precision issues.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree that removing "effects of" doesn't change the meaning. Without the "effects of" the title sounds like it focuses just on the meteorological event, not the impact (in some cases, the long-lasting impact) the storm had on an area. It creates a title that is more concise, but also more ambiguous. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it's not as if there is another dedicated page describing the weather event in a certain location without its effects that this page will be confused with. If there was, merging them would probably be a good idea, unless it's a major storm. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for named storms per previous RM and WP:CONCISE, as they are WP:OVERPRECISE. If we had separate articles on the path/immediate events of the hurricane in the state and the aftermath, then this level of precision would be warranted, but right now anyone seeking content about hurricane X in state Y clearly should be brought to these articles, so no further disambiguation should be added into the descriptive titles. That said, I agree the unnamed storms would lead to some potentially confusing titles, e.g. 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane in Florida seems more like an overly disambiguated title for 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane rather than an article about the aftermath of the hurricane in the place for which it is "named". Not sure what to do about those, and we may be able to better articulate reasoning why those should be treated differently, but they are exceptions that shouldn't make the rule. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE. Would not want to see consistency disrupted. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like this idea Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as naming convention would be more simplified without ruining the meaning of the article(s). Qutlooker (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments. Concise, and readers would assume the effects of a particular hurricane would be covered in the proposed titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we take a look at WP:Concise, it states "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information". However, I feel by removing "Effects of" from the title, we're sacrificing sufficient information for brevity. Take, for example, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia. If we simply say, "Hurricane Isabel in Virginia", we make it unclear what the article is about. Sure, its slightly shorter than the current title, but is the article about Isabel's meteorological history in Virginia? Its effects? Its aftermath? All three? To someone unfamiliar with the way we word things, they may be left confused. Additionally, the issue becomes magnified with unnamed hurricanes. As User:Skarmory pointed out, saying something along the lines of "1919 Florida Hurricane in Texas" is rather unclear. Why is a Florida hurricane in Texas? the average user might wonder. Adding "Effects of" makes it clear that the hurricane also affected Texas, not just Florida. Minus "Effects of", it seems like the article is incorrect or unclear. The second part of WP:Concise holds that we balance brevity and information "to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." Someone (or some editor) familiar with tropical cyclones would know that it is important to distinguish between a cyclone's met history and its impact- that's why we have separate articles for, say, Hurricane Dorian on its meteorological history and its impact on a certain area. And, in every tropical cyclone article, we clearly separate its met history from its impacts. Potentially mashing the two together (or at least making it seem like we did) in the article title violates WP:Concise, as it sacrifices sufficient information for brevity, rather than striking a balance between the two. This is exemplified by the very first sentence of Hurricane Sandy in New England: "Hurricane Sandy in New England spread as far north as Maine in late October 2012, with the most significant damage in Connecticut, and included hurricane-force gusts." We made it sound as if the system Sandy itself, not its effects, spread as far north as Maine, and the only way to remedy this and separate the two for clarity is to add "the effects of". JayTee🕊️ 19:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Conciseness cannot come at the cost of precision. There may be a need to split especially large "effects of" articles in the future, for example into preparations and impacts, in which case having just one article title that doesn't distinguish that would be too inflexible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name shortening. The "effects of" may make it a little more difficult for a reader to search. Ease of searching by readers is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how "effects of" would make it more difficult to search. Searching for just "Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans" finds the Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as the first result within (en) Wikipedia and on Google. If the effect of "effects of" on searchability is deemed a concern, "Hurricane (Name) in (Place)" can be set up as redirects to the more precise title. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I didn’t mind the idea when it first came up, but articles like “Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England” that make me think the current title is best, per the precision arguments. Sandy was never in New England, only its effects were. Technically same as New York, as the center didn’t go through the state. I think the “effects of” makes it more clear up front that the topic is a sub-article. Just “Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans” as a topic implies that it’s going to cover the storm’s passage through NOLA, while being specific about the “effects” means that preparations and aftermath would be included too. That’s why the word “effects” is used, and not just “impacts”, to be broader when necessary. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel that including "Effects of" in the title better clarifies the subject of the article, documenting the effects of a storm in one location or region, not just the storm in general. (e.g., the strength of the storm or its meteorological history within the area, without mentioning its impacts) ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I think the potential for confusion is limited, especially since these are basically just WP:SPINOFFs almost exclusively accessed from the main article – if you're reading the Virginia section of Hurricane Isabel under the level 2 "Impact" heading, you aren't going to wonder too much what the {{mainarticle}} link is about. And just going by vibes, some of the proposed titles do look slightly better. That said, there are edge cases, mentioned above, where the new scheme could introduce some real awkwardness. Given the lack of a compelling reason for changing the long-standing naming convention, these potential snags are worth avoiding. Also, revert the move of Sandy in New England. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&oldid=1175980441"