Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TROP)
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones:

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)

WikiProject Tropical cyclones (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Article alerts
Templates for discussion
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Updated daily by AAlertBotDiscuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Cyclone barnstar.png

Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32

Task forces

Seasons task force (talk)
Storms task force (talk)
Meteorology task force (talk)
Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
Atlantic task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Merging discussions (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Article tables by quality (talk)


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

Tropical cyclones portal

Article up for promotion to A-Class[edit]

List any proposed A-Class assessments here. Discussion will take place on the article talk page. In general, at least two people should endorse promotion.

Proposal to change the project's main image[edit]

Typhoon Maysak from the ISS on March 31

After nearly 12 years, Hurricane Isabel's iconic image from the International Space Station has been surpassed. On March 31, 2015, the ISS passed almost directly over Typhoon Maysak with jaw-dropping results. Of the hundreds of images taken by the astronauts aboard, this particular one stands out as the best. I've already had some discussion off-wiki about this with the general consensus being to add it. Just wanted to make this formal before actually making a project-wide change like this. This change will affect all talk pages and the main tropical cyclone pages where Isabel's image was previously present (with some possible exceptions). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a problem with this. The project could use a slightly new look.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have copied part of the main template but with the new image here. Dustin (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Maysak looks a bit small; it might do well to either create a slightly cropped image intended solely for use in the WikiProject banner, or perhaps the image size can be set to something higher than 48px. Dustin (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Try increasing the size, Dustin. Juliancolton suggested to me that I increase the size to 70, which makes a huge difference and looks great. Don't worry about the blank space, either, as we always have the assessment stuff underneath. I like it, CB, I support the change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried that in my sandbox, and it looks great. This idea is good to go. Dustin (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support the proposed update with a somewhat bigger thumbnail size in the project banner (70px worked well for me, as noted above). My rationale is that it looks more cooler. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - I agree; I like the fact that you get the whole cyclone instead just the center section. I also agree with Juliancolton that 70px works well. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Looks pretty slick. OK, time for the objections.Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

PAGASA only-named storms with JTWC designations[edit]

Hi. Somehow Jason Rees says that we should state Caloy instead of 04W (Caloy) and Karding instead of 14W (Karding) for the 2014 PTS season article because some sort of confusion to people. I disagree on this one because for me it's kind of confusing that if we only state the PAGASA name for a storm without a JTWC designation even though the infobox states that the JTWC had warned on it. Also I would rather copy storms like this in the past seasons like 2009's 24W (Tino) and 2013's 30W (Wilma). What do you guys think about this? Because if Jason Rees is right, then I should do the same to the past seasons. It's hard to explain but I hope you guys understand what I'm saying here. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How is the average reader who knows nothing about tropical cyclones meant to distingish a PAGASA name and a JTWC designation? There not going to be able to which is why i think it is rather redundant we go 24W (Tino) or 30W (Wilma) rather than Wilma. I am also seriously wondering if we should go a bit more crazy and standardize how we deal with alternative names across the world. Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: If the reader is a filipino, they should know what PAGASA is but I don't know if people around the world know what the JTWC is. Yes we should standardize how we deal with alternative names until we think that the reader is not or less confused. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: That is precisely why we shouldn't be using the JTWC numbers for section titles unless we are left with no choice.Jason Rees (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't we reverse the order of designation? Ex: Caloy (04W) I think the JTWC ID should still be there just not the main identification for the storm. Supportstorm (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
But why do we need the JTWC ID in the section title? In my view it just adds bytes that we do not need and while its only a few extra bytes every little helps to get the article to a manageable size.Jason Rees (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The extra bytes is very minimal. I agree with Supportstorm's proposal. The JTWC's numbering scheme is well known in the American meteorology world, and this is the English Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: I agree. But I think it's a little bit awkward, but I think it'll do. But one question: When you said reverse the order of the designation, are you saying only to the PAGASA named storms or does it apply to all storms (even named by JMA and possibly crossover storms)? Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I suggest only doing this with PAGASA names and JTWC numbers. Supportstorm (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: Ok. So what now? Do we do what Supportstorm says right now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit late but wouldn't it be confusing to have JMA name (PAGASA name) for officially named storms, PAGASA name (JTWC designation) for PAGASA named storms and JTWC designation for others? Krit-tonkla talk 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally i think it would be great to see Typhoon Fengshen-Frank rather than Typhoon Fengshen (Frank) which would provide us with a standardisation of the alternative names that i was on about earlier. Jason Rees (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Krit-tonkla: @Jason Rees: It would be kind of confusing about that but I personally think that doing it with brackets is more easier instead of dashes. Also I recommend not using dashes for these because what about the double named storms like Ken-Lola (unless we use a slash for that storm)? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok. @Supportstorm:, @Jason Rees:, @Krit-tonkla: I created this just for you guys to see for my opinion: User:Typhoon2013/Extra Sandbox. I put 3 storms there and did a sample of what was I thinking of with PAGASA named storms with JTWC-only designated storms and JMA Names. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The dash is more professional looking than any of those examples and we could still use it for three names or more like Katrina-Victor-Cindy does. I do not like your proposal Typhoon2013 as it jsut looks tatty and would not be able to be tied in with the MoS rules.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like Supportstorm's proposal. I don't like the dash, because it is problematic and leads to ambiguity when we have double named storms like Typhoon2013 said. If we don't go with Supportstorm's proposal, I would go with Jason's original proposal. I absolutely don't like using Typhoon2013's original proposal, as it is redundant and looks tacky to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: @Inks.LWC: Ok, but I was just trying to help but that wasn't my idea really and I copied that idea from the zh wikipedia. Yes I would rather go for Supportstorm's idea since it is the only choice we have have instead of the other dumb opinions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. I was talking about what you proposed in the original post (and is used for Tino and Wilma). Apparently (as you claim... I haven't verified this, but I have no reason to doubt you), it is the status quo. I still think it looks awkward. Not sure if that's what you were referring to as a "dumb opinion", but that's the one I was talking about. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: I think the way in your sandbox is ok, especially because it is clear which name is JMA and which name is PAGASA. So looks like we are left with this and Supportstorm's idea. Krit-tonkla talk 09:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I still feel that the option I proposed is relevant and the best option to go for. There is no real need for the JTWC designation in the title of the section. As a result I personally reject Hinks idea of it being used just because its well-known about in US Met Circles which isn't too much of surprise since its the US DOD designation. I have been talking to the IBTRACS project and have been informed that they would be open to including them and that the only reason, that they are not included is because they have no BT Data from PAGASA. I am not sure I follow the argument that we would have ambiguity over who named the system if we were to do it in dashes. I say this since in every summary we generally note when a system is named and by whom, while in the PTS seasons we also have the naming section down below which is another thing I hate but can understand the need to see it there since PAGASA has annual lists.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Ok. So you are saying that we either do storms without JTWC designations or do dashes? If I was to choose from those two, I would rather go with storms without JTWC designations. Also I was thinking if we could do that with the userbox saying 10-min winds (PAGASA) instead of 10-min winds (JMA), to make it easier for people to understand what PAGASA is and to make it less confusion to them because obviously nowadays when JMA classifies a storm will be named from the normal WPac naming list. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that we do dashes for all names and do not include the JTWC designation in the title for the reasons outlined above. Also there is only one time when we need to swap 10-min winds (JMA) for 10-min winds (PAGASA) and thats when the JMA doesnt warn on a system that PAGASA does.Jason Rees (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I suggest that we don't do dashes. What if, for example, Ken-Lola got a PAGASA name? It would be confusing. Omitting JTWC designation is ok, though I personally think including it would be better. Krit-tonkla talk 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
1) Doing dashes would bring the WPAC in line with how we handle alternative names across the world. (eg: SWIO) 2) I dont agree that is or that it would be confusing to have Ken-Lola-PAGASA Name especially since we have Katrina-Victor-Cindy, and we generally mention the PAGASA names in both the summary and other places in the seasonal article.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I would rather do the usual like including the JTWC designation or your first idea which is just the PAGASA name. Because what if the naming system in the WPac change in the future? For example what if there will be three names in the future: JMA, PAGASA and some agency? How about I'll tell the other users about this topic like Meow and Hurricanehik etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Again I do not see any confusion since we would note them in the systems blurb.Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jason Rees: Are you sure? There are storms in the WPac which are named Fung-wong, Son-Tinh and even Chan-hom the next storm with a dash. Because if we are going to confirm that we are going to use dashes, I would rather do something like this since there are two types of dashes (the long and the short): Fung-wong—Igme, Ma-on—Ineng etc. You should keep in note with that as well before making your move. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Name/xxW? -- Meow 03:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Jason has swayed me to his side on this. To be grammatically correct, an en dash would be used between the two storm names. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Inks.LWC: Did you see my latest message above about the 2 different dashes, though? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hence my comment that an en dash would be the proper type of dash to use. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Meow: Thanks for the idea! How come no one thought about that: using slashes? @Jason Rees: Can't we use slashes and they are kind of similar to dashes, right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Dashes would be better and look more professional imo than slashes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with @Jason Rees: on this. Though, I would like to bring User:Typhoon2013/Extra Sandbox up for considering (again) because I haven't seen anyone considering it and it has several pros. (I promise I wouldn't bring it up more.)
* Clear and easy to know which names are PAGASA names.
* Get to use JTWC designations.
* Don't use two different confusing kinds of dashes.
* The same way as in Chinese wikipedia.
Thanks. (I can't seem to get the bullets on an indent, so an asterisk is probably ok.) Krit-tonkla talk 14:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use two different types of dashes, and we shouldn't use slashes in the titles either. I think we should keep PAGASA names as "Tropical Depression Caloy", or whatever, when it is only PAGASA named. I don't think the names are widely used enough that they should have combined listing with the JMA names, which are official and are the international names. What's wrong with how we've been doing it for years? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Hink. I'm mostly a progressive kind of guy, but I don't agree with the dash option and I haven't been impressed by any other suggestion. Supportstorm (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I would rather stick to the normal just like the past years. But @Hurricanehink: do you think if it's an only PAGASA name storm with a JTWC designation, we coming both like 04W (Caloy) or just Caloy itself even though there is a JTWC designation? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't include the JTWC number. It's fairly unlikely that a PAGASA storm doesn't get officially named but is still numbered by JTWC, since we're only talking about storms post-2000. As most of these are short-lived, I think we should do the same thing in other basins, and just create an "Other storms" section, as we have for 2014 PTS. We're only talking about 15 since 2000 that currently have their own section, many of which could be part of an "other storms" section. As it stands, there are more PAGASA depressions that weren't named/numbered by either JTWC/JMA than PAGASA depressions just numbered by JTWC. I don't think they should be treated from other PAGASA depressions not named by JMA, so all of them should just be "Tropical Depression Caloy", in the event the section has enough material to warrant being separate from "Other storms". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Ok, but just in case the reader is confused that it is a JTWC designated storm as well, we need to state in its information that it was designated by the JTWC clearly. For example: On March 22, the system was designated as 04W by the JTWC. So yes, I agree with you. @Jason Rees: So what now? Is it now confirmed for all these information we've shared out? Should I or you guys start the new thing from the 1963 season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Winds in infobox[edit]

I just noticed something in my current FAC. For Northern Indian Ocean storms, it's listed as 3-minute winds and 1-minute winds, but that isn't very helpful. There are times where the 3-minute winds are higher than the 1-minute, as with 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone, and it's not unheard of for WPAC, with 10-minute winds higher from JMA than 1-minute winds from JTWC. Rather than potentially confusing the readers, should we perhaps list something like the warning center? Like:

IMD estimate
140 km/h (85 mph 3-minute sustained)
JTWC estimate
110 km/h (70 mph 1-minute sustained)

Likewise, it would be JMA vs. JTWC. I know some on here might question why we list JTWC, but they're still the largest unofficial agency in the world, the most well-known, covers the most territory of any agency when issuing warnings. Please don't make this discussion about whether or not to include JTWC, just feedback on how we handle the winds in the infobox. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I was the reviewer who asked about this -- to be honest I was sure it was an error when I saw the 3-minute estimate was higher than the 1-minute. I was amazed when I learned it was correct. I think non-storm-aficionados are going to be baffled by this; something like the format Hurricanehink suggests above would be a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I am amazed that you picked up on it and realised that 3-minute winds are normally lower than 1-min winds and would love to know what made you pick up on it. That aside i think the proposal could work but we need to work out several details including which warning centres to include and how (Eg: Do Rota, Spain and Morocco count). It would also be interesting to get a reanalysis field in there.Jason Rees (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's just that I have a maths background, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I glanced at the infobox and saw the 3-minute and 1-minute numbers, and immediately wondered why the numbers were the way they were -- I guess what went through my head was that any 3-minute number must have included a 1-minute period of at least the same winds as the 3-minute number, so the 1-minute period would have to be higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, could someone be confused about there being such a large gasp between the JMA and JTWC winds? This argument goes both ways. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Replying to @Jason Rees:, I think it's silly to talk about Spain and Morocco when their one single warning has since become part of the NHC database, so all of Atlantic and EPAC would fall under NHC. Likewise, even though JMA might not have been around then, their BT database goes to 1951, so we would use them going back to that point. Likewise, JTWC has data back to 1945 in their best track, even though it might not have been called that, so we would just use their label going back to that. No need to make it more complicated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This proposal is good, this is something I remember thinking about occasionally in the past. Although maybe we could move the 3-min/1-min estimate text from the winds themselves to the warning center line? — Iune(talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane FAR[edit]

I have nominated 1928 Okeechobee hurricane for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC))