Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:18, 26 July 2011

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]

Archives

Index 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

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

18 May 2024 – Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Did you know

30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion

Featured list candidates

30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion
23 Mar 2024 – Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion

JMA (and NHC) depressions

I would post it on the season page, but seeing as it's the start of a new year, I figured here would be better. So, I think we need to talk about the JMA depressions.

They aren't named or numbered (unlike every other basin)
Most aren't even warned on
They aren't in the best track
They're barely even developed systems. They appear suddenly in their outlooks, and they disappear

So I have a few questions. Are they even considered tropical cyclones by anyone? More importantly, should we really keep track of every last one of them? There is only data to them for as long as we have advisories, since they aren't in the BT. So... that means that a theoretical featured article for 2004 PTS will be fundamentally different from one for 2007, just because we have access to the advisories to them? Does anyone else even keep track of all of the depressions? If not, why should we? Seriously? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could extend that argument to tropical depressions in the Atlantic, because prior to 1987ish, they didn't have advisories either. And their numbering varies, even according to NHC in real-time and post-season reports. We should be consistent through the project on this issue. Tropical depressions are defined as a weak variety of tropical cyclone, and they can cause significant impact (due to flooding), so I think they should be covered in the season articles, and should only sparingly have their own articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel as though the JMA ones are different, since there is no record of that all. And, I don't particularly feel we should include the Atlantic ones, if they weren't known to the public and didn't have a number. For the Atlantic, including all of them would make the season article rather long, and would give undue focus to the weakest storms. Look at the 1979 AHS - David and Frederic are totally overshadowed by the sheer number of depressions, which shouldn't be the case since there are only nine tropical storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How NHC covered it back then was by talking about tropical depressions in their tropical weather outlooks, so it's not like people didn't know they were there. The ~~public~~ numbering just wasn't known to the public until around 1980. Older newspaper clippings showed that the public would have been aware of their existence. The problem is, unless we have someone in the project from Japan, we really don't know if the public is aware of the tropical depressions they mention in their high seas forecast. It's not like we're searching through Japanese newspaper articles for them. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the focus on the WPac (one issue at a time), the only mention of most depressions is in a single line. An example from last year would be "TROPICAL DEPRESSION 1006 HPA AT 20N 120E EAST 10 KT." That doesn't show any indication of intent to warn the public of anything. There are no specifics on the system and only a general location, a specific point rounded to a 90 square mile area, is given. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is still located in their high seas forecast, like it was in the early 1990s, then yes, it is placed there to primarily warn mariners of the threat. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember there are three kinds of TDs in JMA's practice:

1. No MSW, 1-deg position, no forecast, no RSMC products.

2. 30 kt, 0.1-deg position, no forecast, no RSMC products.

3. 30 kt becoming TS in 24 h, 0.1-deg position, 24-h forecast, RSMC products initiated. HkCaGu (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - what about tropical depressions that are only mentioned in the "other storms" section of the HURDAT reanalysis? You know, the ones from 1900 to 1930? I think that's a similar argument to the JMA depressions. Should they appear in every article? If so, to what capacity? Should TD's be given the same treatment as named storms, even though they are not included in the best track and (obviously) they aren't named? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. If NHC considers them tropical depressions, then they are tropical cyclones and should be in the annual articles. We'd just treat them like we have in the Western Pacific Typhoon articles for systems that Hong Kong acknowledged, and JTWC and JMA may not have. Increasingly, the Atlantic articles in the 1970s and 1980s are utilizing names such as "Early June Tropical Depression" for unnumbered tropical depressions, which could be used in older articles as well. If it is agreed that each system does not merit its own section, we could have one section which just talks about the tropical depressions. Whichever way the project wants to go, we should figure it out sooner rather than later. With people improving the season articles, it will just make that much more work to comply with a new project standard later into the future. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big heads up. NHC added the non-developmental database into their ATCF system in February, which means that the old tracks which were transcribed from graph paper to digital format 3-4 years ago are now part of the official database. A woohoo and a d'oh are both in order because of this addition. However, other than some formatting issues during the digitization, a formal reanalysis has not been completed for these systems, as far as far as I can tell. Nor do I remember seeing formal TD designations in that file, which now means that there are two ways to number TDs from 1981-1987 (real-time and ATCF renumbering), three different ways to number depressions between 1972 and 1987 (real-time numbering, after-the-fact numbering the following year, and ATCF numbering which are all different), and four ways to number them between 1967 and 1971 (real-time numbering which covers both the Atlantic and EPac, Atlantic-only numbering, after-the-fact numbering the following year, and ATCF numbering). The big omission (whether on purpose or by accident) was TD 9 of 1977, which impacted NC. This also means that the mainly extratropical Late November 1984 nor'easter is there as tropical for its whole track. Oy. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets archived, what should we do about the old NHC depressions? As I've said elsewhere, we don't even have evidence that they were actual tropical cyclones, and IMO they are a vestige of the old weather bureau calling LPA's "depressions". Should we cover all of them? Perhaps a better question, should each of them get a section? If we wanted to include all of them, we could do something simple such as creating a table, as there probably isn't info for most of the old depressions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that they're in ATCF, they are officially considered TDs, regardless of the different criteria used back then. To consider them otherwise would be original research, and a wikipedia no-no. Their re-evaluation will have to wait until the hurricane re-analysis makes it to 1989, which will be quite a while. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the final thought on the JMA depressions? As mentioned above, there are different warning levels issued for these, JMA is currently issuing advisories on a depression, while others in the past are just briefly mentioned in the high seas forecast. --Holderca1^talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article names - Part VII

I noticed a trend in the article names, particularly in the southern hemisphere. For example: Severe Tropical Cyclone Ului (2010). In the past, we had a simple, standardized name that was Cyclone Ului (2010). It's nice, short, and to the point. The "new" title, while more official, is much longer. Look at the most recent tropical cyclone to affect land. "Cyclone Vania" has 155,000 hits, which is how it's largely known in news reports. On the other hand, the official title, "Severe Tropical Cyclone Vania", only gets 4,890 (many of which Wiki and message boards), with no hits in news sources. We don't do that in the WPAC, where Tropical Storm Bilis is preferred over "Severe Tropical Cyclone Bilis", or in the NIO, where Cyclone Gonu is preferred after a FAC over "Super Cyclonic Storm Gonu". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new titles are too long and I think there is no need to include words that convey intensity. Besides, there is no way of knowing how strong certain storms were (Cyclone Tracy, for example). You can change the Indian Ocean ones to "Cyclonic Storm X" since that is what they are called there. Potapych (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name format with the most hits wins, right? Wikipedia is all about whatever the majority thinks the name of something is, as well as what the consensus view of a topic might be. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, WP:TITLE says it should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. That fits simply doing "Cyclone Foo" to a tee, but certainly not "Severe Tropical Cyclone Foo". Simply put, it says "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria." I'd say "Cyclone Foo" is that simple and obvious. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acctully the name Severe Tropical Cyclone is recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Also I object to using Vania as an example since the duty forecaster at Nadi forgot that cat 3 = STC and just called it a Tropical Cyclone within the only advisory where Vania equalled Severe Tropical Cyclone strength. So lets use the proper most recent system to affect land (Zelia). Using Google news i am getting more hits for Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia than Tropical Cyclone Zelia or Cyclone Zelia. Also the name isn't that long, when compared to some article names such as the 2008-09 South-West Indian Ocean Cyclone Season (7 words), or the List of historic tropical cyclone names (6 words).Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd hardly call "Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia" concise or natural. And might I add that you did the Google news search wrong. "Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia" appears 20 times less than [Cyclone Zelia -Severe]. We can talk about the season articles later - right now I want to focus on the cyclone names. I just feel that "Cyclone Zelia" is a much more natural, recognizable, and concise name than the alternative. Nothing in WP:TITLE says we have to use the most official title. That's why we have articles like 1987 Gulf Coast tropical storm, which is recognizable, as well as what would yield some useful Google hits (instead of the alternative and less useful "Tropical Storm One (1987)"). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually more people imo would recognize Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia rather than Cyclone Zelia. No WP:Title doesnt say we have to use the most official title but it does say we should generally look at using the most popular name which is Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia, and not Cyclone Zelia. Also i did the Google news check is correct as you realistically searched for Tropical Cyclone Zelia and not just Cyclone Zelia. Also i feel that the article names should reflect the name that is used in the seasonal article and not some other name. Also Cyclone Zelia could be taken to mean an european windstorm since they are also called Cyclones at times.Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I severely doubt that. As I said, the most popular name is just "Cyclone Zelia", based on the Google news search having more hits for "Cyclone Zelia" than "Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia". The long name just isn't used as much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt though as i explained you did your search wrong. You searched for Cyclone Zelia but forgot to remove the Tropical. Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia gets 220 000 Tropical Cyclone Zelia gets 64,300 where as 48,500 for Cyclone Zelia.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're doing your search wrong. When doing a Google search, if you want an exact phrase, you put it in parenthesis. So, "Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia" only gets 1,700 hits. Just "Cyclone Zelia" gets 146,000, "Cyclone Zelia" -Severe gets 27,000 hits, and "Cyclone Zelia -Severe -Tropical] (excluding both "severe" and "tropical" from the search) still gets 12,300 hits, which is more than the full title. I'm sorry, but "Cyclone Zelia" is simply used more. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the former standard was for all articles to be "Cyclone X" until last year, until Jason started moving them. There was a brief discussion, which I originally agreed to, but I now think it's better to go with the shorter title. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be better to use "Cyclone χ" per WP:COMMONNAME and then have a redirect at "Severe Tropical Cyclone χ" pointing to the short title. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google/Yahoo/MSN results is wrong, different countries (e.g. google.com/.co.uk/.au/.nz ect) will have different results (numbers). However using reliable sources to base the naming should be used (this is where Google searching is used), example Severe Tropical Cyclone Ingrid is the common name per Bureau of Meteorology and Department of Environment and Resource Management (QLD Government) which are reliable. However some will be just known as just a Tropical Cyclone X or Cyclone X (e.g Cyclone Tracy). Bidgee (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common name is different than full name. The full title of these storms is Severe Tropical Cyclone or Tropical Cyclone, most media outlets refer to systems simply as Cyclone, which is what the public is used to and knows better. Also, using the full titles is against WP:COMMONNAME which says that shorter titles are preferred. In the case of these storms, the year is enough of a disambiguation to keep the titles at just "Cyclone [name] (year)." In the case of retirement, they lose the year and it still prevents overlap. Same goes for other basins across the world. In the Western Pacific, the full name for typhoons can be Severe Typhoon or Violent Typhoon, but they're rarely used and the public just knows them as typhoons. In the Northern Indian Ocean, the full title of the storm can be as long as Very Severe Cyclonic Storm, but they're simply referred to as cyclones. The Atlantic and Eastern Pacific are the same; technically storms are called Major Hurricanes but they're always simply referred to as Hurricane [name]. There's no need to have "Severe Tropical Cyclone" when "Cyclone" is perfectly fine. Less is actually more in this instance. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody in Australia is familiar with the term "Cyclone Tracy". The general public wouldn't ever add "Severe Tropical" to it. In general usage, the word "Tropical" is sometimes added, but never "Severe". The proposed addition of those words does not match common usage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Severe" and "Tropical" wasn't really added to cyclone names until around the 1990s, before then it was just Cyclone. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(to Bidgee) You're missing the most obvious source - newspapers. That is how it is more truly known. The official name even contains the shortened name we're proposing. By its very nature, "Cyclone Yasi" would naturally get more hits than "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media are not meteorologists or Government agencies! They will report anything on who they want it and are far less reliable then the meteorologists and Government agencies who have the authority. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link I just gave you was coauthored by Bruce W. Buckley, Bureau of Meteorology, West Perth, Western Australia. He is both a meteorologist and member of a government agency. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Who said anything about government agencies? WP:TITLE says nothing about what the government agencies say. If one name is used more often than the other (i.e. United States vs. United States of America), then that is what the title should be. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Yanks had their way for naming cyclones you would be calling Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi, Hurricane Yasi. If you were to use Google Australia's results then "Severe Tropical Cyclone Glenda" would win anyway. Bidgee (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007WAF2007027.1 (random paper by Australia's BOM) says that they refer to ie. Cyclone Glenda mostly as "Tropical Cyclone Glenda" and only in a couple of occasions as Severe TC Glenda. So it is not as common as you indicate. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much like how we write article on Wiki, they tend not to repeat "Severe Tropical Cyclone Glenda" over and over BTW this is the official report. Bidgee (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make a difference, read the WP:COMMONNAME page. Bill Clinton is a great example; legally, his full name is William Jefferson Clinton but he's most well-known as Bill Clinton. The same general principle applies to the articles. Despite what the government says, we're using what's most well-known unless circumstances prevent such titles. Also, stop reverting the moves as there was no consensus to move them back to the unnecessarily long titles. Lastly, you stated that Severe Tropical Cyclone Ingrid is the common name per Bureau of Meteorology and Department of Environment and Resource Management (QLD Government) which are reliable. In both those sources, there is no statement that it is the "common name", it is merely the full name of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the newest storm. "Severe tropical cyclone Yasi" gets a whopping 7 hits on Google news Australia, but just "Cyclone Yasi" gets 1,493 hits, which is over 200 times more. Same with a regular Google Australia search. "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi" gets 23,000, but "Cyclone Yasi" gets 438,000, which is 19 times more. I don't know how anyone is still arguing that the entire name is used more commonly. Even if you take the 23,000 hits of STC Yasi out of the regular search (as "Cyclone Yasi" would still appear in "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi"), there are still so many more hits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with HurricaneHink. Naming storm articles "Severe tropical cyclone name" isn't very short and precise and it would help readers of Wikipedia get to the article they are looking for much faster, per what HH mentioned on the "hits" from Google. I also believe this discussion should be on the Southern Hemisphere talk page rather than here because that's where this main issue lies. The NHem doesn't have storm articles named like that, so why aren't all SHem storms just named "Cyclone Name (year)" like they are in the NHem? I believe that all storms should just have the common name for their article because as I said, it really helps Wikipedia with readers; they don't want to read an article as "severe tropical cyclone name" to start out with; they would like to read it as "Cyclone name". It's more precise, and that's probrably what they typed in on Google. If I was in Australia right now, I would go online to see the latest data on Cyclone Yasi, but I would just type in "Cyclone Yasi" on Google, not "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi". It can help people with getting to sources much faster. Almost every Australian news source refers to that storm as "Cyclone Yasi", not "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi". In that case, why should our storm article, or any SHem storm article for that reasoning, be named that? When one is naming an article, that one should think about what it is commonly called by before naming it, or what most people refer it to. An article shouldn't be named by what it technically or officially should be, but out of what it is refered to in general "common sense". Rye998 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine hits
Engine	"Cyclone Yasi"	"Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi"
Regular Google	7.43 million	143,000
Regular Google News	8,850	385
Google Australia	7.35 million	74,400
Google News Australia	7,400	516
CNN	11	4
BBC	125	27
Twitter	Lots	1

Just look at Yasi, which has a ton of coverage since it just made landfall. Do I have to go any further? The full name just isn't used that often, especially when compared to the shorthand name. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, has this discussion reached a conclusion yet? Will all SHem storm articles be named "Cyclone Name (year)"? It is better, and it should be like that for all storms. Rye998 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list and numbers are useless, I get a totally different total results and the fact you have used the incorrect search terms. Also the tread in Australia on twitter is infact #tcyasi. Also your arrogant comments (and edit summary) are unhelpful and no wonder why the Australian Wiki community is now unwilling to work with POV-pushing US editors who ignore local spelling/dating/meanings, we have been open in the past but with many editors wanting what the US want we are very much fed up. Bidgee (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, how are the list and numbers useless? I'm just showing what Google and whatnot are saying, and "Cyclone Yasi" is used resoundingly more often. I am very much willing to take this up to RFC, but I just thought we could deal with it on the talk pages first. I didn't mean to be arrogant in my edit summary, just that I had some conclusive proof for anyone who didn't believe "Cyclone Yasi" was used much more often. As of now, you haven't given any proof, just rants and arguments supporting your POV. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa nelly! First, assume good faith everyone. I see a couple people getting personal here. This is about an encyclopedia, remember, not about a topic normally more heated such as which football team is going to win the World Cup (pick a sport) or Super Bowl, or which religion or political point of view is really the "right" one. No one is talking about calling strong tropical cyclones hurricanes across the western Pacific ocean (except for near American Samoa, where they actually do call them hurricanes). It's merely about what the most common name for a system is. Similar arguments have broken out in the climate change set of articles. Wikipedia is not about what is correct name or fact-wise, it is about what the consensus opinion is on a name or topic. You'll all go blue in the face trying to get everything perfectly correct on here, because with some topics, it's just not possible. Look at our long-winded banter about Zeta (which season article does it belong to?) for more on that. For those that haven't been paying attention, I've actually been applying what I learned writing the Pacific typhoon season articles to the Atlantic articles as of late, particularly in the 1970s and early 1980s where TD numbering has been quite varied between NHC's real-time advisories and NHC's after-the-fact summaries. If there was US-centered POV in this project, someone should have mentioned this a lot sooner than this conversation. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of Yasi is "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi". However, we use the common name, which is the public call it not meteorologists. As its an Australian storm, we should primarily look at what Australians call it, but don't ignore other English-language sources either (in the US, UK, New Zealand, wherever). ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the [www.couriermail.com.au/ Courier-Mail] etc all overwhelmingly refer to plain "Cyclone Yasi". Anna Bligh refers to "Cyclone Yasi" in her interviews and statements. The ADF refers to TC Yasi. The only consistent use of the full version including "Severe" appears to be within the meteorological community. I cannot say what the Australian public call it, but I'd be very surprised if conversation about the storm includes the phrase "severe tropical cyclone". Therefore the most common name in Australia isn't "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi", but a shortened version - probably "Cyclone Yasi" - and this is where the article should be.--86.172.140.179 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't Apply Just to Yasi; it also applies to Laurence of 2009 and Ului in 2010 as well, or any storm articles like that. Although meteorologists refer this storm as "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi", the correct name per WP:COMMONNAME is Cyclone Yasi. As I have mentioned above, if Yasi doesn't have the article name "Cyclone Yasi", then why are no Atlantic, Pacific, or NIO storms named such as well? Another good example mentioned above is Bill Clinton. His legally correct name is William Jefferson Clinton, but he is known much more commonly as Bill Clinton, and thus the article is named as such. When I was searching up Yasi in the internet before it hit Australia, I just typed in "Cyclone Yasi" to get the info on the storm. I didn't want to take the time to type in the long and excessive name "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi". It would be better to refer it to as "Cyclone Yasi" because that's what it is most commonly called and that name has had far more hits on Google than "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi" or "Tropical Cyclone Yasi", per what HurricaneHink has mentioned above. Rye998 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a concensus been reached with this discussion? Will all storm articles in the SHem be named "Cyclone Name (year)" like they are in the NHem? Because Yasi's article is still "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi", and I believe it, and all the other articles should be moved now. Rye998 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you all want to conduct a straw poll or vote on who thinks what, based upon the wikipedia criteria? If you do, those who vote either way should give a one or two sentence explanation why, per wikipedia, the naming should be their way (a wikilink of the wikipedia page which supports their viewpoint could be included). It might quell some of the bad feelings I've seen within this long thread. And, if it matters, the people voting should represent the globe as evenly as possible. We'll make it like the US Senate (oh no!), where each country gets an equal number of votes, if that would help out. It's no secret there are many "yanks" on this page, mainly due to our higher English speaking population (India might have more English speakers, actually). It's not like we have more vacation time/days off than people in other countries.... Thegreatdr (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DR, some people believe that "Severe Tropical Cyclone Name" is more consistent than "Cyclone name" but Hurricanehink and I have said several times that per WP:COMMONNAME, and the google "hits" chart above, these storms should be named accordingly. "Cyclone Name" is clearly used more often than "Severe Tropical Cyclone Name", or "Tropical Cyclone Name" per what HH has mentioned. Also, DR, straw polls can't always used to determine consensus, and in this case it shouldn't be...WP:DEMOCRACY, and it is clear IMO that there is more support for this than there is opposition. I can't find a valid reason why we should keep all SHem storm articles as "Severe Tropical Cyclone Name" in this discussion exept to a Meteorological standpoint, but we don't always call them what they call them. What the news and media call them should be what we should too, because they are more popular and commonly refered to for info. The media in Australia has refered to Yasi as "Cyclone Yasi" almost 90% of the time on air. They rarely say "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi", and once in a while, "Tropical Cyclone Yasi". Does what it "technically should be called" be used instead of what it is "commonly refered to" called? Why must we name storm articles differently in the SHem if we don't do it with a single NHem storm article? I just don't get that. Rye998 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are we calling articles in the Shem differently then what we do in the NHEM? - In the NHEM we go by the RSMC bar the IMD, which is what we are doing for SHEM systems bar the ones located to the west of 90E.Jason Rees (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are calling storm articles differently, I said. Why do we have SHem storm articles as simple as Cyclone Wilma And Cyclone Vania, while have other articles named "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi" and "Severe Tropical Cyclone Laurence?" All storm articles in the SHem should just be kept as "Cyclone Name (Year)", as I've mentioned several times above. It makes no sense to name one storm article as "CN (Year)", and another as "STCN (Year)". As I mentioned above as well, NHem storm articles aren't alternated between "Category 3 Hurricane Karl" and "Hurricane Celia", ect, so why are the names of storm articles altered in the SHem? "CN (year)" is used so much more often than "STCN (year)" that out of WP:COMMONNAME we should join the "popular hits" online as well, rather than keep some of our SHem storm articles long and excessive. Rye998 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aint calling storm articles differently, than the NHEM, in the NHEM we would follow the RSMC name for the system, which is what we are doing in the SHEM. Also i will point out that until last week when Hurricanehink moved them and was Rv'd by Bidgee (per WP:Common Name) we were 100% consistent in the SPAC articles and were working on being conistant with the Australian ones in calling systems either TCs or STCs depending on their intensity. Also whilst im here i reject your silly notion that "CN (year)" is used so much more often than "STCN (year)" since it aint. For example Severe Tropical Cyclone Ului is used more than Cyclone Ului and Severe Tropical Cyclone Laurence is used more than Cyclone Laurence as well as Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman Cyclone Daman Jason Rees (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with Google's search engine. Ului only has 145 hits, much less than just "Cyclone Ului". There is no evidence anywhere that the full name is used more often. The same goes for Laurence (68 hits), and Daman (30 hits). Don't call it a silly notion, it's fact that "CN (year)" is used more often. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RSMC's in the SHem do refer them as "Severe Tropical Cyclone Name", but as I mentioned, is that relevant to what it is commonly refered to? In the NIO, Cyclone Gonu's correct name is "Super Cyclonic Storm Gonu", and Nargis's correct name is "Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Nargis", but why are the articles just "Cyclone Gonu" and "Cyclone Nargis?" And take that to the SHem storms. If they are named "Severe Tropical Cyclone Name", but are commonly refered to as "Cyclone Name", why can't we change the storm article names to such as the NIO at the least? It makes little sense to change article names to "Severe Tropical Cyclone name" in the cases with some storms but leave it as "Cyclone name" with others. And technically the storms in the NHem are named as such as I mentioned, but Hurricanes are just called "Hurricanes." Typhoons, on the other hand, are called "Super Typhoons"(If they get strong enough), and their articles are just "Typhoon Name (Year)", rather than "super typhoon name (Year)". And the NIO applies too. As I had mentioned, If the IMD calls them "Super cyclonic storm name", why isn't the article "super cyclonic storm name?" and as I mentioned, take this to the SHem; why are the names refered to them by the TCWC's there the same as they are in the articles? If we are to make an official standard, then it applies to all of the storms, not just some of them. We can't name some storms "Cyclone name (Year)", while leave others as "Severe Tropical Cyclone name (year)". Rye998 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the purpose of redirects, what I'm seeing is agruments about common useage with examples but the methdology is unclear media utilise shorthand names to conserve space and allieviate repretitions in prose such that Yasi caused.... is a common occurance in articles. Yet "Yasi[1]" is a component of "Cyclone Yasi[2]" which is a component of "Tropical Cyclone Yasi[3]" which in turn is a component of "Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi[4]" each article where a compound term(CY, TCY, STCY) is used there also usage of at least one shortened varriant within the article. The challenge is to create a boolean expression that can be used by google to accurately differenciate between four varriants to determine the actual common name. Until then, I'm not adverse to the articles being at the simplist name (eg Cyclone Yasi) or at the official name(Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi) all other variants should be redirects but given our underlying neutral point of view the official name is the appropriate where the common name is undeterminable. What I am opposed to is the one size fits all formats, bias should always be to the local usage as thats where the enquiries are going to predominately originate from. Gnan garra 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old EPac hurricanes

Over the past little while, I have been researching old Pacific hurricanes. I found an ongoing source, with monthly info on EPac tropical cyclones. The source's last publication is in Novemeber, 1941 (I guess it stopped publishing due to World War II). Anyway, the source has allowed me to majorly expand 1925–1949 Pacific hurricane seasons. If anybody happens to have info on Pacific hurricanes from December 1941 through to the end of 1948, adding info on them would make 1925–1949 Pacific hurricane seasons comprehensive. Perhaps it could be an FL....

Only one of these old hurricanes has enough info and notability to deserve an article of its own. If someone is in a mood for boldness, you could do spin it off. If you're fast you can go for a DYK :) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say, but nice work. Have you considered making it into a table format? Sort of like List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 17th century? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could, although some systems have a lot of text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider splitting the article into decades, like the older Atlantic hurricane season articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian yo-yo cyclones

I looked in some of the articles but didn't find if there's a scientific explanation why Australian cyclones are more erratic than hurricanes or typhoons or even those cyclones in SWI or NIO basins. Why we rather don't have such yo-yo tracks like it happened with Vince and soon we see again with Anthony? --88.102.101.245 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclones

I think it's time to deal with the page once and for all. The page has served its course, and yielded several decent pages, notably List of tropical cyclone records, which has effectively replaced it as a strong encyclopediac page. It is no longer the case that the page is needed, and it only contains a mishmash of various statistics, page links, and tables. I think it is time to delete it, but seeing how long it's been around, I thought I'd bring it here, in case anyone had other ideas. IMO, if it were to be deleted, perhaps it would be userspaced, seeing as there are over 2,000 edits, some of which go back over 8 years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've really beat the heck out of that page, but it's a reasonable title that a reader will search for. I would recommend turning it into a true disambiguation page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like List of Atlantic hurricanes worked out? Yea, I wouldn't mind seeing that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are subpages which deal with all its content, changing it to a disambiguation page makes sense. Speaking of old articles, I ran across what must be one of the first articles, Fractal, which has been edited since summer 2001. It's been around so long that it has dropped from FA to C class, merely due to increased standards in wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it is done. There are lots of subpages that are more helpful than what was ever in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links: thehurricanearchive.com are dead

Up to 126 links are dead. Are there any information wether this site only moved or what we're doing with this? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hink's been using google news to find replacements. If you want to help out, go for it. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is just removing the URL. What we're citing is the news story, not the version of it online. However, we should still try and find the story on Google News. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I knew about this long ago, but forgot to tell you. I was attempting to phase these out on some of the articles, especially the Atlantic hurricane seasons in the 1980's, and a little bit in the 1970's seasons. But isn't it too bad that the bot doesn't mark these as a "deadlink". Where it seems to be the worst is in 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1987.--12george1 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BTW, there is also Newspaperarchive.com, which redirects all URL's to the homepage.--12george1 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is User:Merlinkbot who is specialised on fixing such issues – obviously only if there is some pattern known where a web page is located now. Will try to help Hink on this, at least for the couple of articles I am translating atm into German. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Core" articles

Is Cyclone Catarina really worthy of being classified a "core" article? I know it was unprecedented and remains an anomaly, but it simply doesn't seem like it should be among the handful of things every person should know about tropical cyclones. Juliancolton (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i agree a rethink is required on the core articles.Jason Rees (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it should be whatever the most viewed articles are (say, averaged out for a six month period, to avoid recentism). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina's six-month average is around 2,500. Hurricane Ike's is around 30k... Juliancolton (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that says it. Don't we have a project listing of everything by page views? Tito...? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been involved in the numerical weather prediction FAC for 17 days now, and general improvement to this article for three months now, so Tito's been distracted. =) Otherwise, tropical cyclone forecast model has undergone a substantial upgrade since last night. See what you think. It's not ready for GAN yet, as there are acronyms to expand (if possible) and a reference to find replacements for (ref 1). Back to the topic, I'm still not convinced that page usage should indicate Top importance or whether an article is a core one or not. It could be used to help determine it maybe, but it shouldn't be the overriding factor. However, I do believe that the most viewed articles should be improved as much as possible as soon as possible, since that's how our project will be perceived. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here you go. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We never finished this discussion. Should the importance be based on page-views? That would slant toward recent storms, but if more recent storms are looked at more, aren't they more important to get to be good? For example, Timeline of Hurricane Katrina is listed as low-importance, but over 10,000 people looked at it in May this year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could make a python script to visit a page, say, 86,400 times in a day, and would you classify as "top-importance" if I ran the script every day? I disagree that page importance should be done on the basis of page views. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 18:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a page got 86,400 views in one day, it would certainly be cause for concern. I would also discount appearances on the main page, nor when there are links from an active storm. I think the period from last September to February might be a good baseline, if we really wanted to do it scientifically. I mean, the importance levels are fairly arbitrary. I just wanted to have some sort of rhyme/reason to the arbitrarity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who has a minimal education can tell that if Hurricane Douglas (2002) was viewed 86,400 times a day, something's up. Every rule requires some common sense to enforce. Juliancolton (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Geology and geophysics and Meteorology into "Earth Sciences & Meteorology"

I've proposed merging the "Geology and geophysics" section with the "Meteorology" section on the featured articles homepage, into one "Earth Sciences and Meteorology" section. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-wide drive to eliminate backlogs

As part of the aforementioned drive, I went through the articles which were tagged with dead links within this project in 2008. Shockingly, one was an FA and had yet to be demoted. Most were start class. I tried to use the Internet Wayback Machine to find the old articles, but in most cases (like for the Miami Herald and CNN), they just weren't there. For the references with no accompanying information, the dead links were just eliminated. We still need to go through 2009-2011. Some of them might be GA or FA articles and on borrowed time. This emphasizes the need for appropriate supporting information within references for news articles, as they disappear the quickest with time. You can't go looking for them in google news if you don't know what the title of the article or author of it was. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project bounties / other stats

OK, I thought this could be something fun.

Most recent year worldwide without an FA (excluding 2010) - 1993
- Most recent Atlantic year without an FA (excluding 2010) - 2009
- Most recent EPAC year without an FA (excluding 2010) - 2008
Most recent year worldwide without a GA - 1966
- Most recent Atlantic year without a GA - 1968
- Most recent EPAC year without a GA - 2001
- Most recent WPAC year without a GA (excluding 2010) - 2003
Most recent year worldwide/Atlantic without a storm article - 1942
- Most recent EPAC year without a storm article - 1987
- Most recent WPAC year without a storm article - 1980
- Most recent NIO year without a storm article - 2005
- Most recent SWIO year without a storm article - 2005
- Most recent AUS year without a storm article - 2004
- Most recent SPAC year without a storm article - 2004
Most recent season without an article
- Most recent ATL season without an article - 1864
- Most recent EPAC season without an article - 1963
- Most recent WPAC season without an article - 1956
- Most recent NIO season without an article - 1989
- Most recent SWIO season without an article - 1996–97
- Most recent AUS season without an article - 1996-97
- Most recent SPAC season without an article - 1993-94

GA+ activity (storm + season) by decade by basin

Basin	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s
ATL	28	11	30	23	30	109
EPAC	3	3	7	10	33	58
WPAC	0	0	1	7	2	33
NIO	0	0	1	0	2	6
SWIO	0	0	0	0	0	6
AUS	0	0	1	0	1	8
SPAC	0	0	0	1	1	12

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I also created a page of year by year stats for the EPAC Here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How should we include TDs in the season maps?

All years, if known? No years? Or just since xxxx year? This is an issue I just noticed in the Atlantic season articles, where it seems like recent seasons include TDs, while older seasons (in this case, 1990) do not. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to the old issue of JMA depressions, whether they count, and old NHC depressions that didn't get full warnings. At some period, it seems, the number of depressions became more normal compared to present values. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the Atlantic and northeast Pacific though, we can sidestep the issue by using the NHC color maps, which seems to have been done in many season articles, but not all. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC maps don't include depressions though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. It doesn't seem like the project has any existent standard as to what should be on the track maps. Should we establish one, rather than having different standards for different season articles? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of it comes down to whether the season is done or not. If the season article is lousy, well, it doesn't matter terribly. But, if the season article is in good shape, and certain storms stand out more than others, then I think those should be in the track map. It'd be impossible to standardize, I know, but I almost feel it's not really worth the effort in deciding what to do. People don't really care about TD's to begin with... Maybe someone else should chime in! :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that it would be difficult to defend including some TDs, and not others, within the season track map due to notability as it might constitute an original research or neutral point of view violation. If this issue in itself doesn't matter to people in the project for the time being, since it has yet to hold up an FA or GA nomination, what about standardizing which track map is issued in the north Atlantic and northeast Pacific articles? We have inconsistency there as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True on both accounts. Personally I'd rather use our track map, since ours focus on the actual tracks, whereas the NHC has the same boundaries every time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's use ours, which can be enforced during upcoming GAN and FAC attempts. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we never really got anywhere with this. Should we include TD's in the track map? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should include tropical depression in track amps IMO because they were tropical cyclones. We should also use our track amp as the NHC's EPAC season maps do not show CPHC storm,s unless anyone here wants to split the EPAC and CPAC into separate articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "they were tropical cyclones", do we have any evidence that SWIO Tropical disturbances, JMA depressions, and early 1980s were actual tropical cyclones? Remember, the term "depression" goes back to the 30's and the old Monthly Weather Review days (when it was done monthly), in which it didn't necessarily imply a tropical cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre

Since the article is considered to be under WPTC responsibility I wanted to point out that the Environmental Emergency Response Programme part of the article is actually nothing more than a listing of the RSMCs in this programme. The WMO yesterday activated this programme and according to a declaration of the WMO secretary general which I saw today on BBC News it would be Beijing, Obninsk, and Tokyo RSMCs which would be primarily responsible for warnings according a possible (or probable) radioactive fall-out. We should work on this part of the article whereas this page could be a page to begin with. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm article naming, part VIII. When to name "Storm" instead of "Storm (year)"

Ten days pass, and little project-wide agreement on a different aspect of how we should name storms within wikipedia. Oy. And this topic hadn't really come up in 2-3 years, before this month. This time, it's about the Hurricane Karl article, and whether or not it should assume the name Hurricane Karl (2010) now that the name isn't retired, and will be used again in 2016. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name was not retired. As other Hurricane Karls have existed, the dab is necessary to make clear which one we are talking about (2010). CrazyC83 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as for my reasoning for supporting the previous move namely: It seems clear to me that this is the primary topic. It is the only one of the Hurricane Karl's to make significant landfall and the only one to cause any damage or deaths and this is also the only hurricane to have a significant number of sources from news organisations. As such, in my opinion, this is already clearly the primary topic regardless of whether or not the name is retired. If the name is not retired we can always revisit what one is primary when the next Karl occurs. (Notice I said when the next Karl occurs until a more or equally notable Karl occurs this is the primary topic and the lack of retirement has no bearing on this). Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the tropical cyclone project standard to add years to systems whose names have not been retired, because they will be used again. As you can see above, there was a bit of a discussion about its naming a few months back. Honestly, it should have always had the year attached, because it was never clear the name would be retired. I may have said too much... Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as I explain above in more detail a) I think that whether it's retired or not has very little bearing on what is the primary topic (it would be none but it's retirement or not might generate some news stories etc and so impact on what is the primary topic) and b) I'm not particularly happy with a very locally determined consensus deciding this. We make decisions based on what's best for the reader's and they're unlikely to be tropical storm specialists so I don't think a consensus formed without non-specialists is valid. I also think that to the average reader the arguements you give below will be of little interest - the average reader probably doesn't care that a hurricane "formed in the middle of an extratropical cyclone" they are interested in deaths etc and so to them the primary topic will be this Karl. Wikipedia is there for all readers not just tropical cyclone specialists and the primary topic to them should be deciding. Dpmuk (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main point I was trying to make appears to have been missed. If there is uncertainty (which wikipedia abhors), then make the safest choice. Never forget this an encyclopedia, which by practice, is not a controversial form of media. The safe choice is to include the year in the article title until there is a Karl which will be significant enough for the public to remember. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here...I'm old enough to know better. I just wanted to clarify my point. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just because the WPTC has a "standard" doesn't mean that it's right. Wiki policy clearly dictates that if there is one topic that stands out among others of the same name, then it should have the main article. Karl is a clear example of that. All of the other Karl's did nothing but attain hurricane status over the open ocean. Furthermore, if there was an instance where a retired storm was not the primary topic (for example, Hurricane Celia in the EPAC becomes a destructive hurricane and becomes as well-known as the 1970 one), then that storm should not be given the main article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Karl 2010 is no longer the "primary topic" the way I am seeing it. The reason why Hurricane Karl was not retired or reknown(I should have mentioned this in the earlier requested move) is because the hurricane was not signifigant enough for Mexico to request it's removal. Many people get fixated on the damages and deaths of hurricanes and that truly ≠ retirement and notability. What does equal retirement status(and notability status) of hurricanes or natural disasters is how much it is talked about, how much public reaction it gets, how often it is refered to, ect. Hurricanes Igor and Tomas were unprescedented disasters for Newfoundland and St. Lucia, respectively, and were some of the worst, if not the worst natural disasters in the histories of those places, which is why they were retired. Karl was NOT an unprescedented disaster for Mexico and did NOT become retired for that reason. Mexico has seen lots of hurricanes in the past, say 50 years. Mexico has seen Diana of 1990, Gert of 1993, Janet of 1955, Dean of 2007, ect; Mexico has been hit every few years, and great damage from hurricanes there is, well, it isn't really unexpected. Igor and Tomas were unprescedented disasters though, and they were not as destructive as Karl, but they are talked about so much more because they were once-in a lifetime events for the places they hit, wheras Karl, on the other hand was not. Should damages or deaths alone really be used to determine notability of hurricanes or disasters? A better way of determining notability status of disasters is public outcry and emotional losses. We had this same discussion on Dolly's talk page and Hanna's talk page in 2008. They were both costly storms and deadly storms, but they weren't famous. They weren't talked about very much. They didn't get so much media attention. Karl isn't talked about very much either, and although it was a somewhat costly storm for Mexico, it isn't talked about as much as Igor and Tomas were, and both of those retired names will likely be remembered longer than Karl. Damages can play a part in notability, but what really plays the part in notability and the primary topic is public reaction and media attention, not money or deaths. Therefore this hurricane isn't the primary topic and it should be regrouped with the (2010). Hurricane Gordon of 1994 may clearly be the primary topic but it isn't at the base name because it didn't get enough media attention or public reaction, like Igor and Tomas did. It doesn't matter if it was very costly, or very deadly, ect, what matters is if it was talked about enough. If the hurricane or disaster isn't famous, isn't talked about very much, or isn't reknown, it shouldn't be at the base name. I'm not trying to say too much; i'm fully explaining myself as to why it must have the year disambiguator. Rye998 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic is sound regarding status quo in general. It depends what you mean by Karl "standing out." I personally think the Karl in 1980 is more memorable as it formed in the middle of an extratropical cyclone, but I'm not going to push for it to have the main name. The 1998 Karl was somewhat memorable because it was nearly continued as Hermine (silly Appalachian wedge, confusing matters once again). At least with us using a WMO standard such as retirement we avoid pitfalls regarding what we should or should not do (unlike our TD issues). It is really not our, nor any encyclopedia's, decision to make regarding which one of these low to moderate impact systems should have the main name. Karl was wet, but come on, T. D. #11 of 1999 was larger, wetter (had gale force winds as an ET) and changed the course of a river. Retirements make the decision for us, and are the safest bet. In this case, the status quo is the most prudent choice. Therefore I support the article move to Karl (2010). Thegreatdr (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you understand what i'm trying to say, DR? I'm saying not being retired, Karl 2010 is no different than 2010's Agatha from the other Agatha's, or 1994's Gordon from the other Gordon's. It may appear to be notable, but damages and deaths don't have everything to do with notability. Damages and deaths do indeed play a part, but public reaction and media attention is what matters the most, which was reflected in the WMO's desicion of retired names of 2010, and should also be reflected in our article here on Wikipedia.(I also moved your comment after my reasoning of support - we generally keep things in order...) Rye998 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I think we're in better agreement than you think. I don't think the average person in my part of the world would know/remember/care to make a distinction between many of the storms this year. I think Alex was covered the most (at least where I am), with the others generally falling off the media's radar. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Thegreatdr. The WMO provides an impartial body who can make decisions, as opposed to our subjective views. Igor and Tomas were not nearly as destructive, but considering where they hit, they were much worse storms to them than Karl (and Alex) were to Mexico. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said, you mean? 5 billion in damage isn't very much for Mexico or the U.S, but in Canada or St. Lucia, it is. I don't really care about the damages or deaths; media attention is how people get word of hurricanes, and Karl didn't get so much media attention, wheras Igor and Tomas did. If you were to take Igor's damage in proportion to a U.S. hurricane of the same force, it would be about the equivalent of a catastrophic, media attention, 8.3 billion dollar hurricane in Florida. Hurricane Karl did not get the fame Igor and Tomas did and it shouldn't be without the (2010) for that reason. The WMO is very smart when it comes to retiring names, and when it comes to the particular standards of hurricanes in a particular area. Many common people look at the damages and deaths, but they do not look at the media attention and standards of retirement for a country or group of people. That's a big misconception, and Karl falls into one of those common mistakes behind what we think will happen for retired names and notability/the primary topic. The lack of retirement doesn't really matter, I agree(especially if this was Katrina, ect), but what does matter(and what i've said numerous times) is it's fame and public reaction. Before the consensus with this discussion has been reached, I must ask the closing admin "how long willl this event or disaster be remembered? "How long will the country or group of people affected by this disaster remember it?" The notability of disasters is not related to the ammount of damages or deaths they cause. A better way of determining notability of these events is public outcry and media attention. Although Hurricane Karl caused over 5 billion in damage, the media didn't pay much attention to it, and Mexico doesn't either, and neither do they from Emily, Liza, Madeline, or Haiti from Gordon and Hanna, ect. Igor and Tomas, on the other hand, will be remembered for a long time to come, not exactly because they were retired, but because Canada and St. Lucia have never seen a disaster of epic proportions like them. Unlike Mexico, they will not forget Igor and Tomas for a long time to come. Our article should be reflected based on that idea, NOT the ammount of damages or deaths, as they truly ≠ notability of disasters. Gordon killed over 1,000 people and isn't remembered because 1,000 deaths is small for the country of Haiti, as was the over 500 from Hanna of 2008. Rye998 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I strongly disagree with moving this article to Hurricane Karl (2010). Though the name wasn't retired according to yesterday's statement, the scale of damage wrought by the storm warrants it having the main article. As Hink stated, WPTC is not following Wikipedia standards. The most notable of a series of topics with similar titles would get the main article and the others would be disambiguated. By far, this usage of Karl is the most notable, and from what I can see it is one of the costliest storms in Mexican history. You can't use other storms as a reason to not keep this at the main article as it is mostly a discussion for all storms in similar situations. Should the Wikipedia standard be finally adopted by the WPTC, other articles in similar situations (Gordon '94, Emily '05, Hanna '08) would be moved to the main article. I also don't understand why its such a big deal anyways. The articles at most would have to be moved once after six years if a storm of the same name is more significant. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With three supports and three opposes, the article is likely to stay right where it is. Where is the wikipedia page that discusses situations like this cyclonebiskit? I think it would be good for us all to see it. If that's the standard, so be it. But I'm worried in situations like Allison decisions that were once clear-cut (which one gets the main name - the damaging 1989 storm that hit SE TX/Wrn LA or the damaging 2001 storm that struck SE TX/LA) will become more muddled. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the two Allisons are a good counter argument example. The difference in damage between the two is rather significant. The 1989 one killed 11 and left $500 million in damage while the 2001 one killed 55 (direct/indirect) and left $5.5 billion in damage. Regardless, should there be a case where two storms both warrant a main article, damage and loss of life is similar, and neither are retired, an exception should be made where both would have the year in their title. With the same situation but with one of the two retired, the retired one would have additional support for it having the main article and therefore would be given such. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damage amount isn't everything. I believe it was Rye998 who pointed out something like this. It is similarly easy/difficult to get a $6 billion damage storm in Houston, TX as it is to get a $1/2 billion dollar storm in the country of SE TX/Western Louisiana where they mainly mill forests/wood for International Paper. All I can say is, prepare in advance for the arguments this new standard is going to create. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are three general guidelines whether something is the main article. In terms of Wiki page linking (what links here), the 1980 one has about 50, while the 98, 04, and 10 one have about 100 each. In terms of traffic statistics in February, Karl 80 had 88, Karl 98 had 81, Karl 04 had 204, Karl 10 (with the year) had 241, and just Hurricane Karl got 1668. As for a Google search, the 1980 one got an unusually high amount, but you can see two of the first ten hits deal with the 2010 one. Same with the 1998 one, which had five of the top ten hits related to the 2010 one. The 2010 one has just under 900,000 Ghits, and that's with specifying the year in the search (which might not be done for how recent it was). This is a perfect example when we can take advantage of "This is about the storm in 2010. For other storms of the same name, see X." We used to have that on every page, but it wasn't needed at all for storms that had the year already in there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I strongly agree it should be moved back. Hink and Cyclonebiskit, you shouldn't pay so much attention to the damages. Karl did not get enough media attention to be notable, and that reflected in it not being retired. To be honest, i'm not mad at the WMO for not retiring this name; in fact, I think it rightfully shouldn't have been retired. As I mentioned, storms like Karl are NOT unusual for Mexico, wheras Igor and Tomas were unusual and unprescedented disasters. Also, as I mentioned, Hurricane Gordon of 1994 and TS Agatha in 2010 are not at the base name and just like Karl, shouldn't be, because they didn't get enough media attention or public reaction, like Igor and Tomas did. You shouldn't pay so much attention to the damages; 5.6 billion isn't a very big number by Mexico's standards, and although Igor and Tomas did only 200 and 500 million, respectively, that damage bill is huge by their standards, and it's a lot more for them than Karl's damage was for Mexico, and Karl won't be remembered for as much time as Igor and Tomas for that reason. The number of hits on a computer search is irrelevant to the attention it got in the media, as Igor and Tomas didn't get many computer hits(not as much as Karl) but got more media attention and public reaction and became retired for that reason. Just because a topic sticks out doesn't mean it's notable enough to be at the base name, as I explained with Gordon, Alex, Emily, and Agatha. You must look at a country's standards for retirement to base how notable the hurricane is. Just because Karl caused more damages and deaths than Igor does not mean it was more notable because Karl hit a place that has seen several hurricanes in the past and is well-prepared for them, wheras Igor hit a place that is unprepared for hurricanes and it was an unprescedented once-in a lifetime event for Newfoundland. Karl was not a once in a lifetime event and although it was destructive, it will not go down in Mexican history, wheras Igor, on the other hand, will. Rye998 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't focus on the damage at all in my last comment. It's a simple matter of whether one topic stands out in a group of similar names. This Karl certainly does, based on Wikipedia hits and Google links. The 2010 Karl is overwhelmingly more known, compared to the other ones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Agatha and Karl were extensively covered by the media. Agatha was mentioned months after it dissipated and flooding subsided. I have yet to look into how extensively Karl was covered but from the little bit I have done, it is well-reported. Again, you're claiming that $5.6 billion isn't a lot for Mexico; however, it is a lot for any country and high up on the list for Mexico. For comparison, the costliest hurricanes in the country are Hurricanes Paulene and Wilma, both leaving US$7.5 billion (at the time) in damage. If you're going to use relative standards, Karl and Tomas are easily comparable. From what I've found, the costliest hurricane for St. Lucia was Hurricane Gilbert, leaving $1 billion in damage. In regards to Agatha, it is one of the worst tropical cyclones in Guatemala history, being the costliest in the country as well as one of the deadliest. You have to pull back a bit and look at the big picture rather than "this storm was retired, that one wasn't so what it did means nothing." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving back to the (2010) parenthetical. The project-specific standards of using the year modifier for unretired storms worked fine for five years. It's clear, objective, and unambiguous guideline. Trying to determine the "primary topic" for meteorological phenomena is much more difficult than for people or cities, since different people have different ideas of what constitutes tropical cyclone notability (as evidenced above). The entire WPTC storm article base before 2010 employs the "old" naming scheme, so on the grounds of consistency I support moving non-retired storms back to the disambiguated titles. Also, like DR, I'm still going to tend to think of the 1980 storm before the 2010 one (1980 was on-par with the 1991 Perfect Storm in climatological rarity), so none of the Karls thus far are vastly and indisputably more notable than any of the others. Juliancolton (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say that you're partially right in that climatology should play a role in whether or not a storm is more notable but the emphasis should be much less than the social impact caused by it. Aside from meteorologists, who cares about the meteorologic aspect of a storm? I'm being perfectly blunt here, there are very few people who care about the structure and track of a storm while most are looking for what a storm did and the lasting effects of it. Additionally, if your support is based on consistency concerns, there's a fault in that. Having this discussion over just a single storm would serve no overall purpose. Rather, what I'm gathering is that this policy would be implemented project-wide and older storms using the previous style would be moved to match the newer one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is the wrong place to be having the discussion. I'm moving it to the project page. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said numerous times, it doesn't matter whether or not Karl was more destructive than Igor or Tomas, ect, Igor and Tomas are always going to be remembered by the media and countries affected, wheras Karl will not be, because he was not an epic disaster for Mexico and it isn't remebered in Mexico, let alone by the media, and therefore shouldn't be remembered on Wikipedia either by excluding the (2010). If there is one topic that sticks out more than the others, but that sticking out topic isn't memorable or attention-grabbing overall, it mustn't be at the main page. Ex's:Gordon of 1994 - it clearly sticks out from the other Gordon's, but it isn't remembered very much to this day by the media or people in Haiti, and that is reflected in our article on Wikipedia. Nisha of 2008 is another. It sticks out from the two SPac cyclones named Nisha, but because it wasn't very well known by India, let alone world news/media, it cannot be at the main page. Agatha and Alex are also examples. Because they aren't remembered by Guatemala or Mexico very much, and the media didn't pay very much attention to them, they mustn't be at the main page. If one topic sticks out more than the others, but doesn't stick out overall, it cannot be at the base name. Karl falls into the same category as Nisha, Alex, Agatha, ect. Hurricane Karl does stick out from the other Karl's, but doesn't stick out overall. Although Karl did over 5 billion in damage in Mexico, Mexico does not remember Karl's impacts in Veracruz as much as Canada does for Igor, or Tomas for St. Lucia, the media didn't pay every last bit of attention to KArl, and (unsurprisingly), he wasn't retired. For these reasons he must have the (2010) with him. In the same way Dpmuk is unhappy with a local consensus determining this, I am also personally very unhappy with using a google search engine because the people looking up Karl on Google are most unlikely specialists on this stuff, and just want to view him for, whatever reason. A google search is completly counterintuitive to how much media attention/public reaction a disaster or hurricane really got, in cases of Karl vs. Igor and Tomas. Igor and Tomas did get lots of media attention, but not as many hits as Karl did on google, yet Karl got less media attention, and because of the lack of media attention and public reaction in Mexico, let alone Veracruz, he wasn't retired. To say the least, I think many readers on Wikipedia probrably wouldn't care about the name of Karl's article(I personally do); IMO many people out there are just very upset with the WMO for not retiring Karl altogether(myself excluded). I'm not truly saying that "5.6 billion is nothing for Mexico" but Karl didn't make the news in Mexico as Much as Igor and Tomas did for Canada and St. Lucia. Yes, 5.6 billion is extensive for Mexico, but Mexico has been hit every few years and great damages aren't exactly unexpected in Mexico, as was Karl. If Mexico didn't request Karl, Cyclonebiskit, it means one of two things: 1) the 5.6 billion was overestimated and will be signifigantly decreased soon, or 2) Karl didn't make the "news" in Mexico, and wasn't outstanding for the country. And If Guatemala didn't request Agatha, then either Agatha wasn't the "news" there either, two the damages are overexaggerated, or three, they think they've gone through worse(Stan and Mitch) and they think Agatha hasn't stuck out enough to be in the same league as those storms. One of these, ect must have happened to prevent the name from being removed. Mexico didn't not request Karl for nothing. There has to be a reason behind him not being retired, and I believe that reason, assuming the 5 billion is correct, was that Mexico has seen only a few costlier, but countless deadlier, storms than Karl and therefore they got lucky with him. There have been countless destructive storms for Mexico, but Karl only killed 22 people or so, and that was a signifigant reduction from, say, the 1,000's of lives lost in the 1909 Monterrey Hurricane, ect. Damages will be replaced over time, but the deaths won't be. I think that most of the damage from Karl has been rebuilt by now, and now it's probrably not going to go down in history for Mexico. If you dislike my reasoning, then please provide yours to keeping it without the (2010). I'm not making assumptions, but if Igor and Tomas were the only two retirees in 2010, then why them and not Karl/Alex? Alex and Karl did get media attention, yes, but not as much as Igor and Tomas did, which are still talked about every now and then(note that Gilbert also hit Jamacia and Mexico, becoming the costliest hurricane in both nations at the time; Tomas didn't cause severe damage anywhere but St. Lucia), and that's the real reason why just those two names were retired IMO, and that most likely reflects their notability as well. If anyone thinks i'm wrong, then why else would Mexico not request Karl or Alex? And why would Guatemala not request Agatha? If anyone thinks I am not making a valid point as to why it should be grouped with the (year), then please explain your reasoning behind this. Rye998 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to invoke TL;DR (seriously, I know you are passionate about this discussion, but there's no need for a 5 kb response!), but I'll respond to one part that stood out. How do you know Karl didn't make the news in Mexico (there were certainly many news stories on it in Spanish), and how do you know that it won't be remembered in Mexico? Gert 93, for example, is regularly brought up in discussions about important Mexican hurricanes, so despite being 18 years old it is certainly remembered. For Karl being the only major hurricane in the Bay of Campeche, as well as leaving such heavy damage in Veracruz, I'm sure it will be remembered, at least by the public more so than the one in '80, '98, and '04. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the stronger I come back on the support side of moving these articles back to a parenthetical title. Further, I completely disagree with Hurricanehink's and Cyclonebiskit's assessment that the WPTC naming conventions are in contradiction with general Wikipedia naming guidelines. Let's go back to the relevant naming guideline—Wikipedia:Article titles—and see what the guideline actually says. It gives us five criteria that articles' titles should meet:

Deciding on an article title

Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.

Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title.^[1] For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.

Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.

Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

Wikipedia:Article titles

The parenthetical titles are recognizable, are more precise than non-disambiguated titles, are consistent with existing naming guidelines, and do not introduce any conciseness concerns (nobody will say anything about 7 extra characters.) Where everyone is getting fixated on is on the naturalness criterion. There is little empirical evidence that readers look for any of our articles on non-retired storms with the parenthetical disambiguators, so we have index/disambiguation pages to point readers to the article they are looking for in particular. Additionally, there is one sentence in the article naming guideline that is special importance here:

However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another.

Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title (emphasis on original page)

A consequence of this is that subject areas are allowed to create their own nomenclatures as long as there is a good, overarching reason to do so. For example, nobody in their right mind will look for Drosophila melanogaster, but that is actually the location of the article for the common fruit fly. They completely dispensed with the naturalness criterion since "common fruit fly", while being the most natural article title, introduces very significant issues with regards to precision. In WPTC's case, blindly following naturalness introduces problems with consistency, and more importantly, neutrality.
As such, the marginal advantage of undisambiguated titles in the naturalness criterion is insufficient to counteract the advantages of disambiguated titles in the other four criteria. Moreover, and most importantly, by keeping the "not retired = disambiguated" naming scheme, we remove our own bias from the article naming (is Karl 2010 really the primary topic? It only has 3x the views that a completely forgettable storm has, so I disagree with that premise), and instead apply a consistent, neutral scheme to article nomenclature. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Karl did make the news in Mexico, or if Karl was a once-in-a lifetime event for Veracruz, or if Karl did get more media attention than Igor and Tomas, then why wasn't he retired? Why isn't he sitting right next to Igor and Tomas right now if he did get the attention they got? Mexico didn't request Karl to be retired, and there must be a reason for that, seeing how much damage it did to Veracruz. I believe that reason was that it didn't make the news there. If you think I'm wrong, why would you think he wasn't retired, and should still be at the main article for that reason? Because he wasn't retired, I'm just believing that he hadn't make the news in Mexico, and falls down into the same league as Gordon/Agatha for that reason; Karl 2010 may be getting lots of hits for now, but when the next several months roll around, I don't think Karl 2010 will be more oftenly viewed than any other Karl will be. Is it just that Mexico doesn't like retiring names? If Hurricane Gustav of 2008 wasn't retired, would he still have been at the main page? I think retirement influences how often people view the storm, and because Karl 2010 wasn't retired, it likely won't be viewed as often as the other Karls in the future, which is another reason why I support it be moved back. Retirement isn't the whole basis on notability, but it does have an impact on how often it is viewed IMO. Rye998 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to speculate why Mexico didn't retire Karl. For all we know, because Alex's and Karl's damage was pretty even, they decided not to retire them. Certainly Gustav would be at the main page if it wasn't retired, and I don't think whether or not it was retired makes that much of a difference. It's only a name, it's only an article title, it's really not that big of a deal. We act like retirement makes a storm become part of the upper echelon of TC notability. It's just a name being removed from the list. I suppose as we're talking about this, we should discuss whether storms that are used only once should have a year or not. They aren't in the NIO, it's a mixed bag in the WPAC, and recently User:Undescribed moved back two of the later storms (Richard, Shary). I really, really wish we didn't care so much about the titles, naming, all of that jazz. It's just a title. I don't really care where it goes, but all of this discussion is rather WP:LAME. It's only a title. If we had taken all of the content in this discussion and turned it into prose for an article, Karl could be GA'able, instead of the poor shape it's in right now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I really don't need to summarize my argument because JC already brought it up. What was wrong with what we were doing for the last five years? This kind of progressionism scares me.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for everyone to consider. If your mom, your roommate, your 12 year old brother, or your mailman were to see the name "Hurricane Karl", would he or she know that it's about the 2010 storm? That's the ultimate question. Juliancolton (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would any random person know any retired storm names aside from the biggies (Andrew, Katrina, random others depending on area/age)? Highly unlikely. It's only the name of an article, it really doesn't mean that much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that you support breaking the old standard and I support retaining it, I'm not sure why you keep downplaying the significance of the debate. Juliancolton (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just giving my opinion, and I don't care much to begin with. The old "standard" has many flaws that I tried bringing up earlier but got ignored. Should names used only once get the main article? I personally care more about that, although still not that much for either debate. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there's only one storm with that name, there would be no need for year addition, since there would be no question which storm people were looking for and which one was primary. I thought we'd been doing that all along. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What about when the name has only been used once, but it might be used in the future? IMO, those should remain without the year. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say, keep it simple and not controversial at all. If the name is retired, it gets the main article. Otherwise, add (year) to all named storms in basins with rotating names. Leave it to the WMO to make our decisions. We shouldn't be in the business of making subjective decisions. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling out on this argument for my own sanity. Personally, unless one side just gives up, I don't see an end to this...You can count my "vote" as neutral if it comes down to that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Born2cycle declared consensus on the first requested move on Karl's talk page, he mentioned that we could tell for the forseeable future that Karl 2010 would be the most notable one. Although there are many readers reading the Karl 2010 article daily, not every random U.S. citizen you ask may even know about what Mexico got for Karl. That is the main reason why we shouldn't keep Karl 2010 without the year disambiguator. When it comes to hurricanes, people usually get attention when a big U.S. storm heads for landfall. What I'm trying to point out is that Karl 2010 is known a lot in Veracruz, but not so much in many other places. On the other hand, although Hurricane Katrina only signifigantly affected the U.S. mainland, I don't think there is a single person in the world who hasn't at least heard of her. If a hurricane or natural disaster is only locally remembered, rather than remembered over a wide range of area, then it shouldn't be at the main page. Hurricane Gordon of 1994 is only especially remembered in Haiti, not so much by Mexico, the U.S, or Canada, ect. That same thing goes for Nisha and Hanna of '08, Alberto of 1994, Dolly of '08, ect. Born2cycle said we could move Karl's page again, but what I think he meant by that was if the next Karl in 2016 is remembered more than the 2010 hurricane, and challenges the notability status of the 2010 storm, by then we can move it back to Karl 2010. However, because I personally don't see a very big difference between Karl 2010 and Gordon 1994/Hanna 2008/Emily 2005, ect, it would be best to group Karl back with his year now rather than later. Rye998 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're 6 to 3 in favor of that Rye. Back to editing, GAN reviewing maybe? =P Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would just guess that the consensus is Karl should be with the (2010), despite how bad it may have been for Mexico. I don't know so much about the shape of the article overall; if you ask me, it looks downright poor for GA. It could be altered in a few ways to make that happen, but I don't see an FA, ect coming from Karl's article in the future. Rye998 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I think: If Mexico did not propose to retire Karl they actually didn't believe it did too much damage to their country. Hence, spoken from the Mexican POV: Karl wasn't notable enough to be retired. Considering this I conclude that there's no reason to upheld Karl (2010) more notable than any other Karl since the name is used. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. The ammount of damage for the standards of one country isn't the same as in another. 5.6 billion in Mexico isn't the same as 5.6 billion in, say Canada. I was saying that although Igor and Tomas were not as destructive, the ammount of damage in the places they hit was much worse than what Karl did in the place it hit. Dolly wasn't worse than Felix just because it was more destructive, because the damage Felix did to Nicaragua was much worse than what Dolly did to the U.S. The second Requested move was concluded a few days ago, and the result of the move was to keep it with the (2010), and I believe we should follow this in the future; regardless of how bad it was, if it isn't retired, it's not more notable than the others. Rye998 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of this lameness aside (no offense :P ), what about when storm names were used only once? There are two corollaries, and in either case there isn't an issue of primary topic (as there was with Karl). First is when the name was only used once at all (like Hurricane Belle), where it wasn't retired, but it simply wasn't reused. The other case is when it is scheduled to be reused (like Hurricane Epsilon). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a storm name is used only once, then it must be at the main page unless it is scheduled to be reused in the Future. Colin, Fiona, Julia(and to a lesser extent, Paula) weren't retired, but they are scheduled to be reused in 2016 or future seasons. Richard and Shary are not. I personally think they should have been without their years and they should be moved back. Because only 3 other hurricane seasons in the history of ever have gotten to the "R" and "S" names(6 if you count '69, '33, and 1887), it is highly unlikely Richard and Shary will ever be reused again. In the unlikely event they are reused in the future, we can group them with their years by then... Many storms that formed in the 1960's and 70's that are grouped with their years shouldn't be if they are the only storms of their name and aren't scheduled for reuse for the fact they aren't on any other naming lists. Belle, Francelia, and Isbell are good examples of such(Isbell isn't to be confused with Isabel, like Diana is to Diane). There are other Karl's or Gordon's, however, and because they weren't retired, they get the years... Rye998 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season effects table (revisited)

I've gone ahead and reworked the current templates for the season effects table to work with newer standards (save sorting which I feel is useless for the table). Since it would create a widespread issue, I didn't implement this into the mainspace yet. I've also condensed two of them, TC stats cyclone and TC stats impact into one. It effectively removes the Landfalls and ACE fields from the template entirely and Areas affected is implemented. It also keeps the cleaner feel of the older tables which was one of my main concerns. The newer templates are located at User:Cyclonebiskit/Test, User:Cyclonebiskit/Test1 and User:Cyclonebiskit/Test2. The example table is included below.

(removed due to Sandbox changing)

Hopefully this will prove useful and less cumbersome than having to type out the data to format the entire table in each article. Feel free to request additional changes if you feel them to be necessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of sorting though. Someone may want to order the storms by deaths, damage, or intensity, and this may be the only place online that allows them to do that with a click. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with how to implement it. It's not hard to put it into the template but the sorting likely wont work out properly. It's a very picky table from what I've seen (endless hours of trying to figure out how to get things to sort properly) and having that type of thing on a high traffic article will lead to a messy sorting function. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with how to implement sorting. In fact it is really easy to get it to work properly. Also the beauty of the way i set it up it solved the problem of citing things as too many people have the habit of just sticking some random number in. It also aint that cumbersome and works like a charm in the seasons where it has been fully implemented. Also im against colouring in the dates active field as that just makes it look stupid.Jason Rees (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out a way to get a multi-part template to properly sort, be my guest. In regards to the color, that's how it is in every table, yours even has the name colored. Personally, I like the coloring as it is above. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Tropical Cyclone Collaboration: 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

As previously discussed, this article was going to be the next collaboration after the current one was finished. So now let's make it formal. There is a sandbox for a rewrite at User:Hurricanehink/Sandbox; let's move that to project space (or article space) and edit there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous collaboration, Numerical weather prediction, is now a featured article! 618 edits were made during the collaboration period, and the article was expanded almost 600%, from 9.69 KB to 66.99 KB of wikitext.

Please nominate and help select more articles for the next time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Collaboration.

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went ahead and moved most of the good content from my sandbox into the main article. I'm in for a collab though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Tropical Cyclones to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

So, an issue came up on Hurricane Ginger's FAC, which indicated that using the inflation template might not be such a good idea. The top of Template:Inflation reads:

This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research, if you yourself do not possess it, please consult someone with economic training before making use of this.

I suppose the easy solution would be to add a simple link. However, the warning does bring up a good point (as does User:Juliancolton, who I talked with on IRC before posting this here). What does the inflation actually provide? IMO it's practically useless for the past 10 years, since prices haven't changed that much. Even going back to the 80's only doubles it. People know that prices go up over time. They don't need it thrust on them every time we have a damage total.

I know User:12george1 has painstakingly added inflation templates to a large portion of the project, so as of now we do have some consistency. However, I think we should talk about it some, particularly in these scenarios

1) a storm causes about $1 million in damage in 1975 (nice round number, people know it's an estimate) 2) a sentence listing several damage totals, wherein listing the inflation would make it cluttered and unreadable 3) as mentioned above, a storm in the past 10 years, where the inflated value isn't very different from the original

I hope you all think about it. It'd be nice to have resolved before the start of the hurricane season and the usual influx of editors. Cheers, and happy editing! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this conversation and this one, some Wikipedians make the case that many uses of the {{inflation}} template can't be supported, and where they can be supported, they're original research if you don't provide a citation of some kind. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What type of citation do we need?.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How we use HURDAT

Sorry to be the gadfly again, but is it appropriate how we use HURDAT to, for lack of a better term, make up records? In essence, the Atlantic Hurricane Best Track is a list of data points, which would be fine for saying where the storm was and how strong it was. Anything beyond that involves data analysis (WP:OR?). Here are some examples of what we (including myself) have done:

The article claims a certain storm to be the strongest in a particular month
As harmless as that seems, there are probably websites that already say that. For example, NHC has probably mentioned that sort of info in discussions.
Saying a storm is the strongest/first to do something since a previous storm
Obviously it depends on context, but if it is a notable record (first C5, first off-season), I think it is pretty harmless in including it
Saying a storm set a certain record across the entire database
This is the biggest concern for me. Aside from the extraordinarily vague "northeasternmost" (which thankfully the NHC admitted in Grace 09's TCR), we have lesser "records" that we cite to HURDAT. For example, the southernmost/easternmost in a basin, the longest a storm took to become a hurricane, the first storm to become a hurricane X number of times, the first cyclone to become a TS X number of times, etc.

I think by including some records, we are inflating a storm's notability. If the NHC doesn't mention it, and no other reliable sites online mention it, then why should we? We are an encyclopedia, not a weather almanac/database. Encyclopedias rely on the data and sourcing from other sources. IDK, does anyone have any thoughts on this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data analysis falls very comfortably under WP:CALC. Nothing we derive from HURDAT can possibly go beyond simple plotting and/or algebra. Juliancolton (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that falls under WP:CALC. The policy refers to "routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". I wouldn't say it's any of the three. Searching through an entire dataset is hardly routine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be original research if HURDAT already did the research? It's research, but hardly original. Juliancolton (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT didn't do the original research that we're claiming... They didn't make the claims that we make. It's like taking stuff from a book and writing your own analysis about it. We just can't do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all like reading a book and synthesizing claims from it. Words are subjective, numbers are unambiguous. Honestly, this is a non-issue when we have at best 1 active editor in the project even working on articles. Juliancolton (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's something to consider when and if the project becomes active again. And I'm pretty sure HURDAT is a good example of a primary source, seeing as it falls under "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Using HURDAT to find "records" like the ones I listed is certainly interpreting. I'd like if someone else inserted their opinion, since no offense JC, you're just going to disagree with me as we've done endless times in the past! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with the above thread! :( Juliancolton (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just think it's a real stretch to make up some claim and cite it to HURDAT, when no one else has said such a claim. I'm just uneasy in doing such a practice, but it also suggests such claims may be trivial. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if it is OR but there is quite a bit of logic missing and assumption associated with these compass records. We are assuming that there have never been any other TC's because their not in HURDAT, but as the Hurricane Committee said in its final report for 2009 - "Records indicate that no other cyclone has become a tropical storm as far northeast over the Atlantic Ocean as did Grace, but like Hurricane Fred, it would have been difficult to identify and assess the intensity of tropical cyclones in this part of the Atlantic basin before the use of reliable satellite intensity techniques began in 1972." - Also its worth noting that MF:N were arguing last year that Grace was not a TC and looked like an ordinary EWS.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however we are usually good with saying "on record" or something of the like. Obviously there are storms we don't know exist, but the records and whatnot are based on the storms that do exist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do this, it should be for clear, non-trivial records, such as strongest (wind), lowest pressure, deadliest, or ~~farthest north~~ most poleward. I don't think the farthest east, west, or equatorward records add anything of substance to these articles. Latest and earliest storms are less clear, especially if the systems fall outside a predesignated hurricane season, because one can argue that a Northern Hemisphere January or February storm is late, rather than early, based on the defined bounds of the "official" hurricane season. Any other records we should just wait for the TCR or some other reliable source, such as NCDC. If their statement of a record (like during Ike) appears incorrect, they should be contacted so they can fix the problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. If there was some record of great importance, generally the TCR would say it, so we wouldn't have to cite it to HURDAT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the TCR doesn't say it, we would still be better to attribute such a record to somebody who meets RS, and who mentioned the record. Compass-rose records are marginally useless already, and HURDAT is a meh reference to use for them. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with posting records in articles as long as a reliable source that is not hundrat (i.e TCR, NCDC) as long as if it is not trivia. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown intensity

I have just put this up for discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 28. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task force?

To drum up some interest, I thought it'd be neat to create a task force for the Atlantic basin, as well as one for the east Pacific. I've been thinking that the project doesn't have much of a focus, particularly after reading the signpost and seeing how well the periodic table people are doing, and it might help to have something organized like that. I think the ultimate goal would be to get every season to GA or better (or, in the case of the old seasons, to FL), and believe it or not that isn't too far-off of a goal. I just think some more organization is needed. Perhaps, to limit it and make it easier, it could even be just the period where storms were named.

Earlier this year I did begin a project where I got a few seasons to GT. The first four years with naming are all at GT. The project has always had a problem with getting people to stay, but perhaps something a little more focused might help with editorship. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the taskforces we already have?Jason Rees (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current taskforces, IMO, are too broad. One is for every single storm in the project, and one is for every single season. For editors who are interested in one basin (as many of us are), that isn't ideal, as they might like working on both seasons and storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a good idea. What should they goals for the EPAC be? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, to have every season be a GA or better, and ideally get every storm article to GA. The EPAC is actually much further along than the Atlantic. The EPAC best track is only one third of how long the Atlantic one is, and far fewer storms affect land. In fact, the biggest work would probably be getting the more recent seasons finished. A lot of the older seasons don't have sub-articles (and arguably wouldn't need, given the lack of sources the EPAC tends to have). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the 2010 and 2009 PHS are in decent shape, its 2004, 2007, and 2008 that need some work. Anway, should we do the same for the WPAC? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think for starters, just Atlantic and EPAC are warranted at the moment. As sad as it is to say, no one really cares about the other basins, and all of the others need a ton of work. The Atlantic and EPAC are closer to actually being... done (for lack of a better word). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's doable, but people would need to populate the task force assessment categories. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Atlantic task force page. I went ahead and did some things. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Pacific one was created, BTW. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would this work exactly? Would some articles now be within multiple task forces? Thegreatdr (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that would be the plan. I think we should implement this soon, before the start of the busy part of the season. That is, provided no one disagrees. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the change of {{hurricane}} to {{WPBannerMeta}} format (thanks WOSlinker!), both task forces are live. You can add |atl-task-force=yes and |epac-task-force=yes to the template to populate the assessment categories. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love the mini images (Tip hitting JR and Tip hitting Hawaii), but they're impossible to see in the template. Do you think they should be bigger, or should we get a new pic for that? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be fixed, and the thumbnail will appear whenever the images' cache expires or Bug 28613 is fixed, whichever is first. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, every ATL or EPAC article is gonna need that extra small bit in their talkpage? Just wondering, can a bot or AWB do that? Darren 23^Edits|Mail 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project project

Glossary_of_tropical_cyclone_terms - I can't believe it hadn't been created, but there you go. It's a rough start, but it's needed, IMO. It can handle all of the etc links and terms that don't have articles. In addition, I believe some of the terms that we have are in rather lousy condition. Some of them are borderline definitions due to lack of a better place for them. One of them is invest, which I don't believe has the potential to become a full-fledged article. As a tropical cyclone tracker, there is just too much uncertainty and lack of information over the term. Possibly same with Fujiwhara effect, which has devolved into a list of unsourced examples after the original explanation of what the term was. I think it is something the project sorely needs, and it could end up becoming one of the most important articles if done correctly. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I'm not sure about this one. I don't see a glossary as something you'd find in an encyclopedia. Are there examples of glossary articles in other projects? Would this fall under list class since a glossary is just a list of terms? Curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) We have plenty of such glossaries, like glossary of association football terms or glossary of musical terminology. See also WP:MOSGLOSS. Obviously the class would be up to your project to decide, but certainly we would expect to see such an article at WP:FLC rather than at FAC. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Manual of Style for glossaries? o.O Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is exactly word-for-word with the NHC Glossary page, with the exception of HURDAT.--12george1 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: what words do you actually include. There are some words in there (probably because it was a quick draft or something) which don't really pertain to anything anyone else outside the NHC would use? There are some words with varying definitions. Should the words be of use worldwide? And should we also include words in WP:WPTC/J? Darren 23^Edits|Mail 04:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, add it. And yes, it is copied off from a PD source. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image standards and galleries

I'm thinking in the future we should use 5000px * 5000px 250m MODIS images as main images for tropical cyclones. That way there's a standard for readers. Images we use now varies in size, and some large storms in images appears smaller than their smaller counterparts. And by way, would a new gallery section in storm articles be a good idea considering now MODIS images are way easier to acquire. For example, this category have all images at 5000px 250m MODIS (flattened surface). And also a image naming standard? I like to use storm name yyyy-mm-dd 0000Z format but I think there should be a standard. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 06:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that they should when cropped have a hight-width ratio similar to that of the trackmaps because of many of the small hurricane infoboxes look weird. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are available, anyway. As for size of the images, if you do manipulate their size, I believe it is best to do it before the file is uploaded to wikipedia. One of the FAC reviews did not look kindly upon sizing the images using the image template. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant, but I want a consensus on whether we should applicate this. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what I really meant is to applicate the fact in the future main images uses the 5000*5000px size and 250m/px zoom. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see, some storms are larger than others. If we don't use the same sizing in images, readers will get confused. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a MODIS image is available then it should be used, but I wonder what if none is available during the peak intensity of the storm. I know with some storms in the past we have had to use MODIS images that were taken once a storm began weakening or moved over land. Either way MODIS should definitely be the standard, with NNVL and GOES IR-Background as a secondary. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I really meant was to have a sizing standard. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 00:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 5000x5000 looks pretty good, saw your image on Bret. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

So, I have an FAC up right now, and it seems one of our vestiges from our older days is still hanging around without ever having had a proper solultion. The issue is quite simple. I, for one, don't believe we should include it, since we don't have any sources anywhere that back up the numbers we have for each individual storm. However, others argue that it falls under the routine calculation potion of WP:OR.

I would like to point out that recently we agreed that we shouldn't include HURDAT records that we have to look up ourselves to verify. This does sort of fall under that category, how we're creating information from HURDAT that other sources don't have.

I don't mind if it stays if we can get a source for each individual storm's ACE other than HURDAT. I'd just like some clarity for the FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the calculations involved are routine, but citing it may be difficult. I don't think ACE adds that much value to the article to warrant the trouble. --Holderca1^talk 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source there respective TCR's and a source how to calculate ACE. The rest falls under WP:C as they are fairly routine in this project. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's any different between citing HURDAT and the TCR's (and in fact, in 1992's case, the TCR would be false). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False? I don't think so. Anyhow, I'd prefer sourcing the TCR as my first choice, and HURDAT as the second. We should use HURDAT as least as possible in this project.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1992 had Andrew's update, thus invalidating that preliminary report. Otherwise, what is the difference between using HURDAT and the TCR's? It's still synthesizing the information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Maue cough cough.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACE is used widely within meteorology circles to compare hurricane seasons, and as I recall, the agreement a year or so back was to remove ACE from individual storm articles, but to keep it in season articles. I feel quite strongly that as long as we cite a source for the data and a source for the formula, devising the ACE data does fall comfortably within policy. It's no additional strain on us to include the data, since we already have almost the entire HURDAT converted already! Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly valid to have the season total, but why should we include it for the individual storms? The metric isn't meant to be used for each storm. IDK, I feel it's similar to how we used to use HURDAT to cite records that no one else would mention (like a storm taking the longest to become a hurricane). I'm just looking for a valid reason and method to include the section since I have a current FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we keep the overall season ACE value, I'm fine with eliminating the by-storm stats. Juliancolton (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, ACE would be a great addition to have in each season summary (which I've said before is an under-utilized section). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are we using for ACE anyways? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally just HURDAT and the way to calculate the ACE. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully think that ACE should be used for seasons (perhaps as part of the Infobox), and it can be sourced from here. Individual storm ACE I am completely against, however. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there's no use for ACE for individual storms. ACE is valuable in "season statistics". That source also addresses my concern that our ACE calculations aren't routine, therefore it's basically OR. I fully support using that HURDAT ACE source for and only for the season, not individual storms. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 03:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I did. I removed the ACE section, but in its place I added the ACE season total and an explanation to the season summary. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I think should be added is the season ACE should be in the season infobox to make it slightly easier to view it. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 00:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind that at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FL-Class

When we switched {{hurricane}} from the old format to the new {{WPBM}} format, it turned on support for FL-Class. Up to this point, we had automatically forwarded all featured lists into our FA-Class assessment, but it seems that class=FL is being used more than I thought. That means that we have two options: we can move all featured lists to use FL-Class, or we can put them back in FA-Class. Currently they're split about half and half. Which way should we do this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do FL class. I don't want my hard work being compared to someone else's joke project. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking in the previous post. Just an update, it appears this was implemented. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regular GA/FA article maintenance is important for the project

When I went around "pollenating" the hurricane seasons from 1935 through present with the Atlantic hurricane season wikilink, I found numerous articles which had redirects as wikilinks, mainly Atlantic hurricane, within the seasons which have already reached GA/FA. Remember that during its GAN that the name of the article was changed to North Atlantic tropical cyclone. Having redirects could drop these articles to B/C class in an instant if someone notices and sends the articles to GAR and FAR. This has been a public service announcement. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think redirects are a huge problem. The bigger problem for our GA's and FA's are the broken links, which could certainly jeopardize either of them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For news articles, I'm beginning to think we shouldn't use links after what happenned to the hurricane archive. As long as we reference them well enough, they shouldn't need them anyway. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, news articles do constitute a huge sum of information in our articles. I believe that once all news articles are cited by Google news, it shouldn't be a problem. Unlike thehurricanearchive, I don't think Google news is going anywhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could just use journal articles for everything, we wouldn't have this problem… Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. However, information about some systems just never makes it to NHC and their storm reports, hence the dilemna. If it's not in the storm report, and doesn't get reported at the WMO meeting the following spring, it won't be in their season articles in the journals either. However, there's always a chance something storm-related could be in a non-meteorological journal article, which has been true for several storms within this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hink. Loads of articles I write have Google news articles and very few storms that I write have journals on them. Google news is not going anywhere. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not, an apparent joke page, has been nominated for deletion. The opinions of this group on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Some on-line encyclopedias use arbitrary numbers to distinguish pages, hence article titles do not need to be unique, but Wikipedia uses a system whereby no two pages can have identical titles. It is technically possible to make articles appear to have the same title, but this is never done, as it would be highly confusing to readers, and cause editors to make incorrect links.

[1] Some on-line encyclopedias use arbitrary numbers to distinguish pages, hence article titles do not need to be unique, but Wikipedia uses a system whereby no two pages can have identical titles. It is technically possible to make articles appear to have the same title, but this is never done, as it would be highly confusing to readers, and cause editors to make incorrect links.

[1]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Before this gets archived, what should we do about the old NHC depressions? As I've said elsewhere, we don't even have evidence that they were actual tropical cyclones, and IMO they are a vestige of the old weather bureau calling LPA's "depressions". Should we cover all of them? Perhaps a better question, should each of them get a section? If we wanted to include all of them, we could do something simple such as creating a table, as there probably isn't info for most of the old depressions. ♫ [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] (<small>[[User_talk:Hurricanehink|talk]]</small>)  17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 :Now that they're in ATCF, they are officially considered TDs, regardless of the different criteria used back then.  To consider them otherwise would be original research, and a wikipedia no-no.  Their re-evaluation will have to wait until the hurricane re-analysis makes it to 1989, which will be quite a while.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
+So what is the final thought on the JMA depressions?  As mentioned above, there are different warning levels issued for these, JMA is currently issuing advisories on a depression, while others in the past are just briefly mentioned in the high seas forecast.  --'''[[User:Holderca1|Holderca1]]<sup> [[User talk:Holderca1|talk]]</sup>''' 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 == Article names - Part VII ==