Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Storms article naming

Having coming back from my break I've been thinking about 3 some issues with our article nomenclature. The first is the inconsistency for unnnamed storms. Our guidelines give three forms and in my opinion there are 4 possible forms for the Galveston Hurricane of 1900:

Obviously the last of these isn't that useful for our purposes, but there is no preferred layout for these storms in documentation. In the case of the Galveston 'cane, it is known as just that (with a year for disambiguation purposes). In no case is the year a part of the actual "name" of the storm, so we should feel free to apply our own disambiguation style to it. That would mean the Galveston Hurricane (1900) could well be the best, as it best matches the layout both of the formally named storm articles and wider wiki-practice. However we don't want a WPTC version of this do we?

The second is a consequence of our increasing coverage of older storms. Whilst the Galveston cane is referred to by (some variant of) that name in the majority of reliable sources, with less notable storms (1933 Outer Banks Hurricane for example) we are reduced to making up the article name for ourselves. That particular storm has no name at all, the only mention of it in any RS will refer to it by date. That means the only name we can realistically give to the article (and therefore the storm itself) which is not OR is some variant of Atlantic hurricane 13 (1933). And yes, I don't like that name either.

The final issue is with capitalisation. "Galveston Hurricane" or "Galveston hurricane", "Outer Banks Hurricane" or "Outer Banks hurricane"? With formally named storms the Hurricane/Typhoon/Whatever is part of the name and should be capitalised as a proper noun. However with historical storms they are not named in general but referred to by what region they affected. In the case of the Galveston cane, one of the prime NOAA sources is titled "NOAA's Galveston 1900 Hurricane", but the first reference to the storm on the website is to "The Galveston, Texas, hurricane of 1900". This suggests to me the Hurricane on that site is merely the result of title case and not because it is being treated as a proper noun, in a glance through the external links in our article I could not find a single use of "Galveston Hurricane of 1900" (though I did find "1900 Galveston Hurricane"). With less notable storms it is even worse. By capitalising the hurricane in the 1933 Outer Banks Hurricane, both in the title and in the prose, we have turned a way of referring to the storm into a name, where no name even exists for the storm. I think this particular point might have to go to discussion at MOS for guidance, but we need to start thinking about it here first.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the format of Year Location Hurricane (or TS, typhoon, or cyclone, hurricane capitalized). The exception is if it has a name already, with an of year to minimize confusion. Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, provided that is the name as they are referred to, should remain. However, this hurdat list provides names for several pre-1950 hurricanes. The question is, do we follow that list and do the format of Hurdat-name Hurricane of Year, or do we do it to the other standard by doing Year Hurdat-name Hurricane. Some names will not make sense if you do the latter. For example, 1869 Saxby's Gale doesn't work too well compared to Saxby's Gale of 1869. We certainly have a dilema here. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I unarchived this, because we really need a consensus on what to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I personally think we should create a name like 1933 Outer Banks Hurricane, rather than using the format of Hurricane 1 (1900). Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Season Articles

Storm articles
Season articles
Records articles
Meteorology articles

The season articles are way behind most of the other articles in the rest of the project. I was wondering if there were any plans to work on them. I checked a lot of them and, for most, its been a long time since any changes have been made. Would anyone be interested in attacking the most recent season articles for each basin first? Put off anything going on in other season articles and work on the post-2000s to bring them up to B-class. This has worked well for the Atlantic, but in the other basins, there are only two I think that are higher than Start.

I started a little bit on 2000 Pacific typhoon season. I've added all the infoboxes and images. Someone needs to come up with a consistent naming system, and someone else needs to make track maps. The unofficial storms should be sifted to a different section if that is how it works. (Or maybe split the article between the W Pacific (including JTWC) and the Philippines?) Most importantly, the article needs copy under each section. For other basins, the Southern Hemisphere articles and one Northern Indian Ocean need splitting. Good kitty 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you do have a point. Our season articles do need a bit of work. As I promised above, I uploaded graphs of our assessments in specific areas, and put them to the right. Our storm articles are in good shape, with almost 25% of articles being GAs or better; however, our hurricane season articles are poor almost across the board, as they are most of the time "too big" for just one person to do. I also found that a few articles have had no change in assessment since Mathbot began running stats on April 27 (even before the logs existed!), and it would surprise me that many have had no edits at all since then.
For the record, this is the way I divided articles:
Overall, the storm articles have progressed a lot, but we still need to summarize them into season articles, which have precedence over storm articles. However, a lot of the 1800s season articles are almost doomed to always be starts, as there isn't enough interest nor enough information to improve them. Titoxd(?!?) 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One solution I've found for the summarization of storm articles in the season articles is basically copying the lede, although this should only be done for articles with good sized ledes or GA and above. Completely agreed, though, that the seasons are being ignored. This is a good example of the rough transition from WPTC 1.0 to 2.0, for the lack of a better term. 1.0 was when we were providing a good base, when sources and lots of info wasn't that important. As we transition into 2.0, we're getting done what's easy (for the most part), not really what's needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As to why the images look like teh crap, I have no clue. Click on them and look at them directly (not through the image description page, but straight from the server) and they look fine, but when made thumbnails... eww. Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That is very weird. Well, it's the effort and data behind it that makes them good tables. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 Pacific typhoon seasons now B class

If anyone with the talents for creating track maps would like to tackle this article, go for it. We have two so far, and only need another 54. =) Thegreatdr 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on with the job over the weekend. As this is going to be a mass upload; I will do it for all named WPac, NIO and SHem that I can identify, I will implement the changes previously discussed too. In other words, can no-one else with the program do this, my bot account is the best for this role.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad this is a somewhat automated process for you. The Mexican rainfall information being added to the tropical cyclone rainfall database is similarly automated. If only the United States was. Thegreatdr 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...Or maybe not. If not done by February, I'll look into producing the tracks. Thegreatdr 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting to the early 1980's. =) Thegreatdr 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1983 is now start class. Thegreatdr 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Are they higher than that? I couldn't find damage info and I don't know where to find a definitive list of PAGASA names. But they do finally have tracks. Good kitty 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
They could be higher than start. If you think they are, upgrade them to B. Thegreatdr 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting SHEM articles?

I know we sort of agreed to split the Southern Hemisphere cyclone season articles, but that hasn't really happened. If we do split them, where should they be split to? Here's what I had in mind, using the 1999-00 season as an example:

Thoughts? --Coredesat 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I think the SPac/Aussie articles are reasonable (though I'm not sure if 1999-00 or 1999-2000 is the MOS-encouraged format for this date range. I'm leery of combining the two Indian basins like Tito suggests however; Nhem and SHem really should be kept seperate. An alternative is:
  • SW Indian
  • SE Indian and Pacific

This scheme follows that of the WMO; though a further split of the Aus/SPac is reasonable. That suggests in creating the split we should first do the SWIO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, you have to consider whether the amount of activity in the NIO is high enough for it to warrant its own seasonal article. That's why I consider keeping the Indian Ocean together to be sensible for now. Titoxd(?!?) 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the NIO is actually high enough for its own seasonal article, probably back to 1990 or maybe earlier. The problem is there is no interest there. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have a fundamentally bigger problem with our coverage of the NIO. There is no such thing as the 2006 North Indian cyclone season; there are two of those (pre- and post-monsoon). A more logical way to split is by basin and then by time. If the North IO articles are too short, have 5-years covered at once. The SWIO has a dozen in a typical year, it could stand alone IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again, had some "error conflict" thing.

Personally I'd go with SW Indian, SE Indian and Australian Region (On the WMO page it is a little long at "South-East Indian Ocean, Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpenteria, Coral Sea, Solomon Sea and Gulf of Papua", and SW Pacific as it says on the WMO page. http://severe.worldweather.wmo.int/ (Sorry not used this for a while so can't remember how to do links) I've never seen it referred to as the South Pacific on the WMO but always the SW Pacific so I've been using that term. The North Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal) would then be separate, after all it is a different RSMC! Any basin with its own RSMC deserves an article (The three BoM TCWCs combined into one). P.K. 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the current page:

  • 3.1 Southeast Indian Ocean/Western Australia
  • 3.2 Arafura Sea and Western Gulf of Carpentaria/Northern Australia
  • 3.3 Coral Sea and Eastern Gulf of Carpentaria/Eastern Australia
  • 3.4 Solomon Sea and Gulf of Papua/Papua New Guinea


Something this page doesn't have that should is that explaining why the Austrailia area is seperated into four sections not one. And I have to agree, either merge the IO's togheher or fix the page into 5-year sections.Mitchazenia(8600+edits) 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, agree the NIO should have its own article. Instead of 5 years, maybe two years at once is a good compromise, because there's usually 6-7 storms each year warned on by the JTWC. As for SHem, SWIO, Australian Region, and SWPac I'd agree with. – Chacor 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. I'm worried about the correct nomenclature for the NIO though...--Nilfanion (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Officially, their TCOP says "TROPICAL CYCLONE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE BAY OF BENGAL AND THE ARABIAN SEA". – Chacor 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree having the Indian Ocean basin joined together, don't like that idea. RaNdOm26 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you misunderstand me. My problem is not with the storms, but with the article itself. There is no such thing as the 2006 North Indian cyclone season - would the pluralization 2006 North Indian cyclone seasons be valid though?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You could drop the word 'season'. You'd also have to call it the 'North(ern) Indian Ocean' because its the only ocean named after a country. Good kitty 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Five or six storms would make a good article. Good kitty 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been 12 warned systems so far this year from RSMC New Delhi so surely the basin has enough to get its own article. That reminds me I need to e-mail them and see if they have a best track file availible (Same with RSMC Nadi). P.K. 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They should have a BT available, the WMO op-plans mandate that the RSMCs give a copy to the NCDC.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1999-2000 season split

I've done the split, to 1999-00 South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season, 1999-00 Australian region tropical cyclone season, and 1999-00 South Pacific tropical cyclone season. I need help with the Australian region and SPac ones, though - I'm not sure why the infobox is causing whitespace in the article. – Chacor 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I also need help fixing links to the correct target. This is sort of why I originally felt it is not practical to split. Too much work - I took over 2 and a half hours splitting this one, and the links aren't even fixed. – Chacor 06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a necessary evil unfortunately, any split will require the same amount of pain. I have a feeling the infobox isn't quite working right because of the inclusion of the old code - see the one in 2005AHS there is a light grey line beneath the five-seasons; which is an artifact. That means fix the usage of the template...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Track map revision

This has its origin in a discussion on IRC a few days ago, and I will get around to implementing it soon. The BMNG backgrounds are useful, however they are more useful for by-month cumulative graphs than individual storm maps. In a few days I will do a mass-upload (unless objections are raised here) to modify 2 things:

  1. For storms with an extratropical/remnant low phase the track maps will be altered to include the full map.
  2. For a limited number of storms with dodgy BT data, I will change the maps to unknown strength. This applies to a limited number of older EPAC storms, such as this, which is clearly absurd.

As a full map may not be appropriate for all storms, feel free to rv the update on Commons and leave a message about it on the talk page of the relevant article; discussion should be held on case by case I feel.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nice work as always. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think its a good idea to do a mass change of older EPac storms to unknown strength; yes, its probably true, but they are still officially at the strength they are currently given as. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Is absurd to say Estelle was at 75 kt continuously for a week; when an inspection of the MWR will reveal something different. This way we lose a bit of information from the track, but it is not incorrect; the article itself will still hold the information after all.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What is going on with this one? [1] I looked at CPHC and it had 140 knots and NHC had 130 knots. Can you use CPHC data when it is in their area of responsibility. Good kitty 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
See here for discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Units in infoboxes

As the improved infoboxes come online, we can stylistically alter how we do the units. Currently the season infoboxes take raw data in knots/mbar and spit out:

  1. For the NOAA basins A mph (B km/h), C mbar (hPa) (D inHg)
  2. For all other basins A km/h (B mph), C hPa (mbar).

It is easy enough to tweak these, but what exactly do we want? Do we want to make the US basins the only exception (for giving imperial first) or add some other special cases. And with the standard layouts above, are they optimal or do they need tweaking?--Nilfanion (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The above layouts look pretty good, though is hPa indeed the official unit for pressure in other basins? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
hPa is the official unit for pressure in Australia. RaNdOm26 07:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I wonder what we're going to do about borderline Cat4s like Nora. It was 115 kt, which converts to 131 mph; that would round down to 130 mph, but NHC rounds it up to 135... I am trying to think of a way to do this automatically, but I can't think of any. Titoxd(?!?) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Always my stupid idea of putting something Cat 3-4 for something like that.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm I missed all this stuff (was before my time). Why does this matter exactly? Its not like the NHC deals in mph at all (except in advisories).--Nilfanion (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    What would a 115 kt storm output through the parserfunction? Then compare it with the situation described on the bottom of Nora's talk... Titoxd(?!?) 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, we only have it online for the seasons so far (good test bed). 115 kt would give 130 mph (215 km/h). This is the only correct answer unless we stop using to-the-nearest-5 as 132.3 rounds to 130. Yes this is less than the SSHS 3/4 boundary, but there is no mathematically valid way around that. If you look at the easy-hurdat for H Rita there is this line: "September 23 12 UTC 27.1N 91.5W 310 deg 10 mph 16 kph 130 mph 215 kph 927 mb Major Hurricane - Category 4". The corresponding entry in HURDAT-proper is "2710915 115 927*". There's an instance of the 115 being correctly converted and rounded to 130, and the Category being correctly held to 4. If we use PFs to make the Cat automatic (probable), it will use the knots figure. The SSHS is defined in knots after all, as that is what the NHC uses as its primary unit and its data is all in knots (it converts for the public). The choice is 115 kt = 130 mph or we drop the to-the-nearest-5 rounding...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but unless the infobox is accurate on all cases (which we cannot make it mathematically, due to this glitch), I'm thinking that having it convert automatically might not be a good idea. Titoxd(?!?) 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Tito, actually Nora's box is incorrect. It claims 135 when it should be 130 after all. I know that's less than the SSHS cat 3/4 cut-off but that's an artifact of rounding. 135 is flat incorrect, whereas 130 is a result of the approximation. We could round to the nearest unit, that would solve this dilemma.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oh and as an aside, the Cat could be generated from the windspeed (one less parameter to mess up). As it would come from the knots data the error wouldn't arise. Nora saying Cat 4 - 130 mph 215 km/h is the only correct thing unless we change rounding.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, it doesn't look right. I've done tons of infoboxes for hurricanes and when it says 115 knots, I put 135 mph. We've always rounded like they do in the NHC advisories. Kenneth. Good kitty 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Just because the NHC does it that way doesn't make it right. It is fundamentally bad mathematics. 132.2~ 130 NOT 135. I agree 130 is silly, but 135 is wrong. I don't like either option here :(--Nilfanion (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The RSMC Miami public advisories state "the maximum wind speed is near to xxx km/h ... xxx mi/h." The important word here being "near" and not that the maximum wind speed is that value. So they do not state the exact values there so it is wrong to use them. P.K. 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't just be hPa for all basins. The term mbar is obsolete and was dropped by almost all countries (Except the USA?) years ago so I see no need to include that as well. Windspeeds well I always favour metric first no matter what the basin especially as most people around the world will only understand metric. (Myself included) P.K. 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but this runs into Manual of Style difficulties. Best practice is to include both metric and imperial (and the NHC use mbar). I think the NOAA/elsewhere split (giving precedence to US customary for their basins) is the best way.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is exactly the same thing though! Why they don't catch up with the rest of the world and use hPa I just don't understand. It looks odd with a "conversion" box bit in brackets when it is the same. P.K. 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

This is a fundamentally straightforward thing but we have to make a choice between three things all of which are wrong in some sense (I can't see any alternative). None of these pose any difficulties for calculation (the caveat is for 135 a value of 116 would have to be entered in the templates), so this should not affect the outcome. Question: What mph value should 115 knots be converted to?

130 mph

  • SpLoT
  • RaNdOm26
  • Thegreatdr (this is normally what NHC converts to anyway)

135 mph

  • Hurricanehink
  • Titoxd
  • Chacor
  • Hello32020
  • Good kitty
  • Cyclone1
  • CrazyC83

132 mph

  • Mitchazenia
  • P.K.

Comments

  • Can we code it to have the word "NEAR" in the infobox for Atl/EPac/CPac? Then we can use the max value (if it matches BT) from RSMC Miami/Honolulu "Highest winds - Near 135 mph"? – Chacor 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's necessary. All wind values are estimates, anyway. No hurricane goes from 100 mph to 105 mph in a 6 hour period, despite what the best track says. The NHC puts the rounded value in the TCR's, not the exact (not like 98 knots, 102 knots), but they don't say estimated winds or near wind speed. They just say the nice, even number. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No vote from me, I'll leave it to you lot; I don't really mind here but we need to hold this discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going for 132 as it seems about right, as the rest are arbitary because 115 knots = 1/2 way between the two at 132.25.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

135 mph. I know it's wrong, but 130 is too low for Cat. 4 and 132 is too uneven. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute - i just did some knot-mph calcs and got the same problem with 85 knots = 97.75 mph. Are they just downgrading this or is this a dumb error, because 97.75 would lean 85 knots towards 100 mph instead of 95.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm they do round up to 100 for these storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For all we know, a storm with 116 kt is still rounded down by the NHC to 115, so we can't really say that it is exactly 132.2 mph. It could be 132.7 and no one would know, and it would round up to 135 mph. Titoxd(?!?) 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we get that problem with all storms Tito, the 50 kt level is worse (as 57.5 is exactly halfway).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not really a contributor in the Atlantic basin at all, but this pertains to units, so I guess I'll give an opinion. Usually, we would round 115 kt down to 130 mph, but the NHC rounds it up (always?) to 135 mph, which is mathematically incorrect. However, after all, wind speeds are estimates, and as Tito mentions earlier, 116 kt could just be rounded down to 115 kt. Furthermore, to complicate matters, the SSHS category issue comes into play, and to put 130 mph would mean a Cat3 rather than a Cat4 per NHC. Personally, I'd still round down to 130 mph because SSHS should be determined by whatever primary units the relevant agency gives (in this case knots?), and although it's confusing, I'd rather preserve a unified units policy of the rounding-to-nearest-five rather than make an exception to follow NHC and supposedly SSHS in this case. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is pertinent to all basins unfortunately. We use the SSHS categories in all articles, so whatever we decide should apply to all basins.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote 130 mph. Yes, it's confusing, but I'll stick to the math. RaNdOm26 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm for saying 135 mph, because 130 is too low to make it a cat 4, and 132 isn't an appropriate wind speed to state. Hello32020 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Hello32020. →Cyclone1 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To convert properly 115 kts would have to be 132 mi/h. The base units used in TC advisories are kts so any conversion other than from this original value is just wrong. P.K. 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the NHC converts 115 knots to 135 mph. Here's proof. [A disco for Hurricane Keith in 2000 had the storm with 115 knots], but in the public advisory they explicetly say the hurricane has 135 mph winds. What's wrong with doing what the NHC does? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote is "MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 135 MPH...215 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS." I've got no problem with the 215 km/h bit as that is mathematically correct (Conversion here). However the 135 mi/h bit is just wrong mathematically and I'm not sure how they can put it as that in the first place. (Conversion here). RSMC Miami round to the nearest 5 km/h or mi/h in the public advisories which is why I'm saying I agree with the first but not the latter. The absolute values would of course be 213 km/h (And if the poll was in km/h I'd go with this value) and 132 mi/h. P.K. 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the NHC always rounds to 135 mph for 115 kt unless there is clear evidence that it is only 130 mph (i.e. Ivan at landfall operationally), and even then it is only in advisories, not documentation. As a result, 135. Here are all the conversions that I think should be made in most cases (unless the conversions are different in NHC advisories, which they sometimes do differ):

knots mph km/h knots mph km/h knots mph km/h
20 knots 25 mph 40 km/h 70 knots 80 mph 130 km/h 120 knots 140 mph 225 km/h
25 knots 30 mph 45 km/h 75 knots 85 mph 135 km/h 125 knots 145 mph 230 km/h
30 knots 35 mph 55 km/h 80 knots 90 mph 145 km/h 130 knots 150 mph 240 km/h
35 knots 40 mph 65 km/h 85 knots 100 mph 155 km/h 135 knots 155 mph 250 km/h
40 knots 45 mph 75 km/h 90 knots 105 mph 165 km/h 140 knots 160 mph 260 km/h
45 knots 50 mph 85 km/h 95 knots 110 mph 175 km/h 145 knots 165 mph 265 km/h
50 knots 60 mph 95 km/h 100 knots 115 mph 185 km/h 150 knots 175 mph 280 km/h
55 knots 65 mph 100 km/h 105 knots 120 mph 195 km/h 155 knots 180 mph 290 km/h
60 knots 70 mph 110 km/h 110 knots 125 mph 205 km/h 160 knots 185 mph 295 km/h
65 knots 75 mph 120 km/h 115 knots 135 mph 215 km/h 165 knots 190 mph 305 km/h

CrazyC83 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissipation date

We currently do not have a consensus on what the dissipation date should be. Some have the date for extratropical, and some have date of dissipation as a cyclone in general (which includes extratropical). The same applies for the less frequent occurrence that an extratropical storm became a tropical cyclone. Which date should we use? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the tropical cyclone formation and dissipation dates. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow the RSMCs imo, that is, date of losing tropicality (or complete dissipation for storms that don't undergo XT-trans). – Chacor 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the situation. Normally, it should be the date of dissipation, but if it is over land and impacting, that should be included as part of the period. If it remains over water, the date of losing tropical characteristics. That includes devolving to a wave or low as well. (After all, those routinely regain tropical characteristics) CrazyC83 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some random example storms which are under dispute.

  • Hurricane Olga (2001)- What should the formation date be? The date of extratropical storm forming, date becoming subtropical, or date of becoming tropical?
  • Tropical Storm Bill (2003)- Should the formation date be the time of the low forming or the tropical depression?
  • Tropical Storm Blas (2004)- Should the dissipation date be when it degenerates from a tropical depression to remnant low, or when the remnant low dissipates?

For all of them, I think it should be subtropical or tropical only. The formation date is when it first becomes a tropical or subtropical cyclone, and it dissipates the minute when it is not a tropical or subtropical cyclone. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For all, I think that we should put all of them, with a note saying "tropical after September 3", or "extratropical after October 9". That way, the entire lifetime of the storm is noted, but the tropical timeframe is clearly noted as well. Titoxd(?!?) 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an issue with the Pacific Typhoon Season articles. In the 1980's, JTWC considered their start date when they become tropical storms. Nowadays, it appears to be considered begun when the initial low forms. To be consistent, we should use when it first became a low pressure area for the start date. I'm of the opinion that the date it "dissipates" would be the date when the surface low ceases to exist. Traditionally though, TC warning centers consider dissipation as "dissipation as a tropical cyclone", which is quite different. Thegreatdr 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I know what my gut tells me: that the formation and dissipation dates should tell the period (or occasionally periods) during which two conditions held: the system was a cyclone and the system was tropical or subtropical. And I could probably come up with a pretty sizeable paragraph explaining this opinion. But I bet most of us have a gut reaction, and I bet most of us could spend a lot of energy explaining the logic behind our opinions. And I know everybody's paragraph would be different. Therefore, I think the only way we are going to come to a final conclusion is by looking carefully at what the JTWC, the NHC, etc. have concluded and figuring out how we can best approximate their conclusions about what constitutes formation and dissipation. We need the people, such as Thegreatdr, who have the most hard facts on the conclusions of the authorities, to spell them out. Then, we can decide what to do. Maybe we will decide to make our official definition consistent across both basins and time. Maybe across one and not the other. Maybe across neither. I believe that whatever we decide, the decision will come easier if we are all looking at the same facts and if our guts are not involved. Ev-Man 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More infobox fun

Should we develop an infobox for articles like List of New Jersey hurricanes or another one for articles like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina? Currently, a lot of the List of XXX articles have a track map of the storm paths. That would be a good image for all of the articles, though perhaps it should be adjusted slightly so the territory is highlighted. This a problem with List of Delaware hurricanes, which is such a small area that it could be a little confusing. Perhaps it could based off of the seasonal infobox. There could be Earliest storm, Latest storm, Strongest storm, Total storms, Total landfalls (omitted if it is an inland area), Total fatalities, and Total damages. Similarly, the infobox for the effects of... articles could be based on storm articles. The image is a bit tricky. For Isabel, I chose one image for all of the articles. Would that work? An nice alternative would be having an image of the hurricane making landfall on the state, though typically a hurricane has one major landfall with one nice satellite image. Isabel only made one landfall, and when entering other states it was typically too weak for a good image. Damage pictures would be better reserved for later in the article, as well. One possible solution would be highlighting the state in the uniform image. For example, Isabel's sub-articles would have the one major picture, but each would be different. The problem with that is if the image doesn't contain one of the areas. There could be Date affected (when storm first impacted area), Peak wind gust, Peak rainfall amount (if applicable), Damage, and Fatalities. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hink, its possible. However, don't expect it any time soon, I've got a more significant template to deal with first.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Hurricane}} is up guys as a replacement for {{Infobox hurricane}}. It still needs a bit of work (to deal with basin crossers and other minor oddities) but is otherwise functional. It automatically gets the appropriate windspeed and pressure (note the 115 kt issue has a workaround), does damage inflation and also adds the cats on the relevant scales from the WS value.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful, please - "type" should not be "Hurricane" but "hurricane", otherwise it displays as "Category 5 Hurricane", for example. We've had always "hurricane" in the infobox decapitalised, and it's definitely better decapitalised. – Chacor 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And on that note, "Tropical storm", not "Tropical Storm". And same with depressions. – Chacor 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why Name and Type are seperate. Note, its not just what the project does "Category 5 hurricane" is the way the NHC says it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

365 more days...

... of INVESTS, predictions, arguements over something that isn't even important enough for WP:LAME, reverts, edit wars, TCR's never wanting to come out, AOI's, the reverting of AOI's, talk pages becoming longer than the article itself, new FA's, new FAC'S, a lot of Starts, squabblings over which storms deserve articles, and a lot more List of XX hurricanes. Happy new year, people, happy new year! →Cyclone1 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!!!!! icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
hehe! Hopefully things will continue to stabilize...I do see the spurt of GA nominees has subsided... CrazyC83 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Only cause it seems that the creation of tropical cyclone articles has slowed. Lately, articles that start become good articles within 2 weeks.Mitchazenia9000+edits) 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

This article was deleted a couple days ago as a copyvio. As the source site is a NOAA site, I've restored it as PD; though cleanup is sorely needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NOAA Class Images

Ive seen that users are uploading alot of NOAA Class images. However, the links to in the image pages are broken and thus pose a problem in verfication which is required for an image upload. Storm05 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Because you don't know how to access them doesn't mean they're problematic. All the adequate information - down to the EXACT data orders - is given. There's only one link given, that's http://www.class.noaa.gov, which clearly works as of this writing. So stop trying to get others in trouble just because you've been warned for image copyvio before. These images are fine. – Chacor 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not nonsense, (and im not getting anyone in trouble) how can an adminstrator or a bot be able to verify an image (even if the excat data orders are given in the image caption) if he/she/it is unable to work the devices in the NOAA Class Website, i tried working the devices and input all the date orders and got nothing. Storm05 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, personally I have no problem using the CLASS site to verify the sourcing of these images.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll rename that category later. Maybe that will make it clearer about where to go. Good kitty 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Got featured topic candidates?

Please consider developing some featured topic candidates. Here are some possibilities:

I'm asking because I think Wikipedia really needs more featured topics. So far, an encyclopedia composed only of good or featured Wikipedia articles would be very eccentric and disjointed. And on the other hand, an encyclopedia that includes other Wikipedia articles would be uneven in quality.

I think this project is the most likely source of the next featured topics.

--Hoziron 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, we had this discussion in the past. 2003 AHS still needs a lot of work on Isabel, specifically effects by region. I am currently working on both 2003 AHS and retired Pacific hurricane names. The Kenna GA nomination wasn't failed - it's just on hold and should pass soon. Pauline is almost finished, so in a few days I'll nominate that for featured topic. Costliest Atlantic hurricanes has quite a few problems. First, all but Katrina need a significant amount of work. Charley needs the least work out of the 4 non-FA's, and it still needs a lot of work. We also considered the following:

I also thought of the following:

Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, that's a lot of progress since the previous discussion! Sorry I overlooked it. Thanks. Hoziron 03:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we haven't made much progress in actually getting the topics close to being featured. However, I feel the retired Pacific hurricanes is close enough to being done to put it up for featured topic candidates. See here. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal problems

We might need to take another look at Portal:Tropical cyclones, as I spoke to some editors on IRC and there are concerns that it fails the current featured portal criteria. It isn't well-maintained, and the layout may need to be changed around a bit to look more attractive. --Coredesat 00:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What in specific doesn't meet the current featured portal criteria? I updated the selected stuff, with the selected article completed up to April 7, and the pictures completed through March. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, give details. A broad declaration doesn't help fixing whatever needs fixing, if anything. Titoxd(?!?) 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think our DYK section is badly updated, we should be using about all new articles into it (we don't have that many articles to be fussy with). The active cyclones/news sections could be merged, they are erratically maintained.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pruning the list

The number of users in the project is much less than what would seem so on the list. Some users have made next to no edits to tropical cyclone related articles, while a few others haven't made edits in general for several months. Should we send out something to have users confirm they are still part of the project? Maybe have a list somewhere where active participants can sign, and after a month or two those who didn't sign will be removed. We should have a better idea of how many participants are actually here. It's probably about half of what is listed, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just make an active and inactive user section. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That could work, but I think we should send something out to remind people and get an updated list. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Harry Potter did something similar, you may want to ask them how they did it... Titoxd(?!?) 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
They did put people automatically on an inactive list with a template. We could do a similar thing. Here are some users that are inactive. This is only the first four columns. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Baylink- No WPTC edits for a year
  • Jaranda- Several thousand edits and a few months without an edit to WPTC
  • Hurricane Devon- Six months without an edit in general due to being on probation
  • Goobergunch- Six months without WPTC edit
  • Counters- Only 3 edits overall, including one to sign up to the WPTC. No WPTC edits
  • DanielES15- Four months without an edit, 1 year since last WPTC edit
  • Sarah sofía- 6+ months since last WPTC edit
  • Fishhead- 6+ months since last WPTC edit
  • WotGoPlunk- Used to be semi-active, but no wiki-edits for four months
  • Lkegley9- 9 months since last WPTC edit
  • Rcnj- 6+ months since last WPTC edit, 4 months without Wiki edit
  • DavidH- No Wiki edits for 7 months
  • TydeNet- 9 months since last WPTC edit
  • Changlc- 6+ months since last WPTC edit
  • Dr Denim- 8 months since last wiki edit
  • RaccoonFox- Blocked
  • DaNASCAT- No WPTC edits
  • WeatherVane- No Wiki edits for 7 months
  • VortexGuy- Only 2 edits, made 7 months ago
  • Douglasr007- No WPTC edits for 5 months

Related storms

Could people here give their opinions over at Talk:North American ice storm of 2007#Atlantic crossover? about the proposal (inactivated for now, but could be reopened if new evidence comes in) to merge North American ice storm of 2007 with Kyrill (storm). Note also Per (storm). Firstly, are these all related? Secondly, if so, should they have seperate articles. Some people over there think they could be all related to the same phenomenon, others are not so sure, and some point out that the effects on either side of the Atlantic are very different. Carcharoth 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They should have no place in this project, as they were never tropical cyclones. CrazyC83 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
He just wanted our opinions ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration on Typhoon Durian article?

Given severe its effects were and the trouble that Chacor and I went through to find sources, we need to finish an article on Typhoon Durian. However, I'm going to be too busy help him with it, so how would a collaboration sound? As of now, we don't have any FA-caliber articles for any storms outside the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins - making this a project worth considering (the article would warrant high importance). The sandbox article can be found here. --Coredesat 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I hope we can pull together for this one. We've never had a true community collaboration in the past. I'm in if others are. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to help and will if I have time (I hate my new life schedule). icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to help... --IrfanFaiz 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is now in the mainspace at Typhoon Durian.Mitchazenia 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Our vital articles

I think we should bring back the discussion on our vital/core articles. The old one was here. We shouldn't have a set number, just articles that should definetly be in an encyclopedia. The question is how do we determine which ones should definetly be in? I think they should be well-known topics by the general public or storms that did extreme things. Tip might apply to the latter, though modern research indicates it was the most intense for about a 30 year period until 1987 when recon stopped. Does it deserve to be among the most important just because no other storms were measured to have been lowered? Maybe yes, maybe no. Should the same apply to Hurricane John (1994)? It was the longest recorded tropical cyclone on record, though ships in the central and western Pacific provided a good length of track for maybe a 50 year period. Deaths and damage are easier to estimate on a longer term scale of importance. Should Cyclone Catarina be included? Sure, it was an oddity, but I'm not sure if it was one of the most significant tropical cyclones of all time. Also, should storm surge be included for a tropical cyclone wikiproject? I think a better addition would be an article about deaths caused by tropical cyclones. I included storms that are the worst or one of the worst natural disasters in a country's history, within reason. I'll admit there's a bias towards recent storms, though that is due to the information. I also couldn't think of good EPAC ones. Here's a rough list that is on the liberal side of what to include. Feel free to comment or add to the list, though don't subtract until discussing it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is more rational than the first attempt at compiling such a list. It is still fairly flawed as the selection seems pretty arbitrary to me. The "core" articles listed above are fine, though I would add Atlantic hurricane, Pacific hurricane, Pacific typhoon et al. Of the low impacting storms the only one I consider to be worthy of Top Class is Tip. It has the lowest ever recorded sea-level pressure; this fact makes it one of the few storms mentioned by name in a one (paper) page discussion of the subject. Apart from this exception impact should be used as the criterion. In particular, I think Catarina should not be Top-class. A case can be made for South Atlantic tropical cyclone to be Top as that is the article that covers the significance of a SAtl TC, not Catarina; though I personally think High is better. Impact is objectively measured in terms of deaths/damages, but the relative significance of these numbers varies depending on impact location. This list is nearing completion now, it should provide us with meaningful numbers here; I'll bump its priority.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not that arbitrary. For the most part, they are the most devestating tropical cyclones for countries usually impacted by tropical cyclones. Tip could go either way. Come to think of it, it might be a good idea to include a storm not for its impact. I've added the basin tropical cyclone articles, but wasn't sure about the SHEM. Catarina, yea, high is probably fine for that. Let us know when you're done that list, though its major fallacy is that it's only for storms that have articles. Durian and Geralda are two articles that could be considered high class, as they have both been known to have been their country's worst tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought Thelma was the worst in that country. Also, any idea what E.C. Barrett "Climatology from Satellites" is like? The last edition was from 1979. I noticed that's where the image of the Bhola cyclone came from. It would also be interesting for an article about cyclones and weather satellites. There's a small paragraph in Tropical cyclone observation Good kitty 06:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thelma caused the most deaths, but after a discussion on the IRC we agreed Durian was worse due to its similar but slightly less death toll, but much greater damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The working article still says its less than 1000 so its going to take a lot to get to at least 5000. Good kitty 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The top X most significant cyclones of all time (for any value of X) if selected truly impartially (including no positive discrimination), will show an apparent imbalance between regions. By restricting the list to exactly one Philippine storm this list is fundamentally flawed. When I've finished my list I'm not going to say what cut-off values should be used (at least at first), but what criteria I think should be borne in mind in determining significance objectively.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing

I've finished the listing at User:Nilfanion/Cyclone listing. As Hink notes it is flawed as it only includes storms that have articles. However, if you know the damage and/or deaths from a significant storm without an article, feel free to add it or post to the talk page if you aren't confident with how the table works. I suggest that everyone here has a fiddle with the sort keys there to see what gets generated. Some facts are really obvious, such as higher deaths mean higher importance, and stronger storms tend to be more important. As for my opinions as to what should primarily be borne in mind for Top importance:

  1. Deaths resulting from the storm.
  2. Damages resulting from the storm.
  3. The ratio of deaths to damages. Whilst this is not directly significant, it gives an indicator as to what is more significant.
  4. Location in space and time of primary impact.
  5. Long-term cultural impact.

This last one is rather vague, but is clear enough: its basically asking if the relevant society considers the cyclone to be important. For example, Australian cyclones invariably get compared to Tracy and Camille was the Gulf Coast storm (until Katrina at any rate). That sort of thing is a sure sign that the storm in question is truly significant and so worthy of Top-class, leaving aside the numbers. In my opinion, the Atlantic selections show recentism issues; why Mitch but not the 1780 Great hurricane?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Locations without articles

This is something we never discussed before. What should we do in the event that, say, a storm makes landfall on a city that has no article? Should we:

  1. Not wikilink it
  2. Wikilink it, despite that it is a red link
  3. Wikilink to a different location with the city - for example [[County name|City location]]
  4. Other

This is a common problem with storms outside of the United States for which some locations might never get articles. I personally recommend two with a twist. We should contact other Wikiprojects with a list of requested location articles to be created. A good start would be TC breakpoints, which I've started below with U.S. locations. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There should always be a link, even if it is a redlink to a small village or settlement. (That happens more often with other weather events, especially tornado events which routinely strike rural communities and have their maximum devastation in unincorporated communities of, say, 200 people) CrazyC83 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh, what the? Real geographic location = link. If a redlink bothers you that much create a geo-stub (containing coordinates, geopolitical location and population) - job done. Do we really need on this? As for TC breakpoints, again create them as geo-stubs. The only issue with them, is do those articles fall within our scope?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not that silly (per your edit summary). Why create a new article or add a red link when a similar article could be linked? (which is one of the options) The breakpoints don't really fall in our scope, though we could create a list or a category for it. It could be divided by country if necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not just create the article yourself? There are good reasons for redlinking to a town in preference to its county (not least it encourages the articles creation). This is not a WPTC issue but WP-wide thing, I'm quoting community consensus on the issue. If writing a geo-stub is really something you don't want to do (its a 5 minute job), either create it as a redirect (with {{R with possibilities}}) to the county or (better) leave it as a redlink.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that works. Now at least we discussed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone breakpoints without articles

Symbols for the infoboxes

It was discussed in the past about using symbols instead of just letters in {{infobox hurricane small}}, following the French concept. I've just gone on a bit of insanity with Inkscape so we now have SVG versions. The images for hurricanes are in {{Saffir-Simpson full}}; the gallery below contains just about anything else we might need; for both N and S hemispheres.

For remnant lows, disturbances and the like, the best solution in my opinion in a "L" over the TD colour. The symbology for a TD isn't as clear as for the above, so best to use "TD" over the TD colour like we do now. All this leaves is the subtropical stuff, I'm not sure what the "correct" symbol is.

I am going to make new versions of {{infobox hurricane small}} and {{infobox hurricane current}} to do the auto-magic calculations. Would symbols be better than text? Got to the point eventually :P--Nilfanion (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you do - just as a reminder to everyone - i added the rainfall characteristic to the infobox small so you can fill it in with that.Mitchazenia 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The box is way too big now. Good kitty 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the rainfall stuff; 3 images wide is far far too wide, and I don't think the rainfall graph belongs in that infobox anyway. (If you want to discuss that new thread please). Good Kitty, you referring to the addition of the rainfall pic or something else.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant the third image. I was wondering where that was coming from. Can you make it so that the placeholder picture doesn't come up when you have a track map in the track field? Also the Australian scale needs to be implemented somehow because people from Australia viewing those pages are not aware that the small infoboxes only display a different scale. It doesn't help that pages that try to show both use the exact same colors for completely different meanings. If the scales could be concurrent in both hurricane infoboxes, it would be ideal, but the Australian one should be optional. Good kitty 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh god... the Australian scale debate would just explode the ol' colour scandal again :( Note this is all slightly off-topic for this thread really, I started this to ask "do we want the symbols in the infobox", not get everyones wishlist :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Extending the colour scheme

The colour scheme for the SSHS is pretty well defined, however we have problems in how to handle Australian cyclones in particular and other agencies schemes as well. The Australians are the worst, as they also use a numerical scale Cyclone Larry's infobox it results in a strange box. The JMA typhoon colour is still an issue too. The table below is derived from the one in Tropical cyclone scales.

SSHS Aus IMD MF JMA FMS
Tropical Depression Tropical Low Depression Tropical Disturbance Tropical Depression Tropical Depression
Deep Depression Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Tropical Cyclone (1) Cyclonic Storm Moderate Tropical Storm Tropical Storm Tropical Cyclone
Tropical Cyclone (2) Severe Cyclonic Storm Severe Tropical Storm Severe Tropical Storm
Hurricane (1)
Severe Tropical Cyclone (3) Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Tropical Cyclone Typhoon
Hurricane (2)
Major Hurricane (3) Severe Tropical Cyclone (4)
Intense Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (4)
Severe Tropical Cyclone (5)
Very Intense Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (5) Super Cyclonic Storm

This version of the table uses the colours strictly for how they were initially defined. This version extends the colours to across the "reasonable" scales, giving identical starts to equivalent minimum strength. The final version interpolates between the colours, using HSV intermediates. For simplicity TS has been extended across, even though minimal TSs in 10-min winds are stronger than 1-min minimal storms. IMD VSCS, JMA TY and FMS TC have all been left blank as these are annoyingly broad classifications. IMD Depression and MF T Disturbance are blank as they are effecitvely INVESTS (not in the current scheme).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it, although the sub-depression categories shown in white should keep the depression color, and the broader ones should be a judgement call based on the actual intensity (varying depending). CrazyC83 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

EPac tracks, help wanted

Data
Background

Following discussion (well more a soliloquy by me) on IRC past couple days, I've manipulated the HURDAT to produce an image comparable in appearance to the by-month images in Atlantic hurricane. However, I'm not sure about what colour to best use for these purposes, so I'm giving the data here for people to play with. The first image is the output from the track generator with the data points blurred. The more solid the TS colouration, the more TC activity near that location. The blank map is precisely the right size so a straightforward combination of the two will produce good output. Feel free to manipulate the colour of the data to produce a better looking image, and post it here saying what you did. Obviously as these will be test images, try and keep the filesize down ;)

Personally I think there are two issues: one what colour do we want the data to be? The second is more a technical one, would it be possible to make the data less transparent (it peaks at about 75% opacity, near 100% would work better) - if someone does do that; please tell me how to manage it in the GIMP so I can reproduce that in future images. Thanks guys.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First issue is easy - anything that isn't blue. Blue might look a little strange on a blue background unless it's a fairly light blue (say, TS or STS blue). Orange might work. --Coredesat 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Try it and see. Reason I brought this here at all was to let other people have a go :P--Nilfanion (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Try making the highest point of coloration 0% alpha in GIMP. You can also try making a gradient using the colors in {{storm colour}}. Titoxd(?!?) 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Help with infobox in Great Gale of 1848

I finally found some damage numbers from this storm. The problem is that the known damage total is under $100,000 (1848 dollars), which is playing havoc with the figure shown in the infobox. Is there a fix for this? Thegreatdr 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a fix at the moment; I'll work on it later. For now I've rounded the figure so it displays correctly.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

100000 x the inflation of 160 years or so = total in todays dollars. ill ask one of my tax friends to see if he can give me a number Maverick423 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ok guys here is the total from my friend:

In the United States, $100,000 would equate to $2,089,750.83 in 2006, according to the Consumer Price Index (from 1800 to 2006). Morphh (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maverick423"

well there is your data i can also add it to the templet if youd all like but it will take me a bit since im currently working Maverick423 15:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's less than $100,000. We have a source for our inflations, but the infobox is getting screwy, apparently. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


ah i see so what is the exact amount? and yes i have a feeling WP might be experiancing problems since (its lagging some pages are not displaying and user talk pages are not displaying) this was about a hour ago but it appears to be fixed now so try working with it again. Maverick423 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons categorisation

A dispute has arisen over on Commons regarding how the images should be categorised. Good kitty has been removing images from commons:Category:2000s Atlantic hurricane impacts and is instead including them through the storm categories; For example see this edit to Image:Hurricane Isabel flood water.jpg. The net result of this edits is that the image is still in a subcategory of commons:Category:Tropical cyclone impacts, but instead of being categorised directly through the impact category structure; it is indirectly through commons:Category:Hurricane Isabel.

This may not seem to be a big deal. However the problem is images like Image:Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg are now in a subcategory of the impact, when it has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that an image of damage from Hurricane Isabel (for example), has two important attributes. Firstly, it relates to Isabel: so should be in a category that covers the storm. Secondly: It is a picture of damage: so it should be in a category containing similar images (and not satellite imagery for instance). Before these edits commons:Category:2000s Atlantic hurricane impacts may have been overpopulated, but now as a result of the restructure the category includes many satellite images, which really don't belong in that cat.

It is better for these images to be in a (possibly) overpopulated high-level category and the individual storm category than for the storm category to be in the high level category resulting with incorrectly categorised images (the satellite pics). If a storm has enough images to justify a subcat for impact (Isabel might now for example), then that should be created. However, if the storm does not many images, for example Alberto, there would be no point to making a subcategory. In the case of storms without an impact category the best solution for impact imagery is for it to be located in the storm's category and the most relevant impact category directly and not to include the storm cat in the impact cat.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't overpopulate it with individual pictures. We have several categories already in TC and they are the most poorly maintained. Despite my effort, this one is untenable: commons:Category:NASA MODIS images of tropical cyclones. Also creating subcategories is futile because it means that few people will do this correctly. TC already has a lot of obscure categories that no one thinks to use, so creating new ones only creates new problems. For example, I'm the only one who's ever used this one commons:Category:Astronaut images of tropical cyclones because no one even knows it exists. The system someone came up with a year ago was working fine because people are easily able to find the media they need and we've almost eliminated duplicate uploads in the past year. Before you started editing here, TC articles were very disorganized. Think of it this way: if someone wants impact pictures of Hurricane Isabel, they would check the impact category and look under Hurricane Isabel. Why should it be more complicated than that? Good kitty 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Inefficient categorisation is an editorial issue and can be fixed (by the creation of appropriate subcategories). However, these changes in the name of simplicity are resulting in incorrect categorisation of some images. Please try to avoid ad hominem here.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I would search under TC's by year, 2003, and Isabel to find a damage image of Isabel. The damage pics, IMO, should never have subcats (unless the subcat is damage images of Hurricane XXX, though unlikely). The individual damage images should be in the damage category. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Best practice on FACs

I'm concerned about how the broader community feels about our FAC comments. We are practically constantly on FAC. Our pile-on supports have generated ill feeling towards us, this thread indicates that. This leads to multiple problems for us and WP as a whole:

  1. Our FAs may be passing FAC at a lower standard than FA quality, because "its another hurricane article who the hell cares" attitudes from non-project members.
  2. Our pile-on supports may ramrod through articles that are not FA quality (FAC is a vote, pile-ons from us can lead to broader pile ons)
  3. Even if our internal support doesn't alter the FAC itself, the perception that we are just trying to send more and more articles through the system is still there.
  4. Trust in the quality of this projects articles is damaged as a result of all this.

I'm going to suggest here a series of FAC conduct guidelines:

  1. DO NOT vote support on any project FAC (except to nominate). If it is FA-quality, the community will recognise that without us needing to vote support ourselves.
  2. Having said that, feel free to oppose project FACs
  3. Likewise feel free to add reply to other editors on FACs other than your own.
  4. If any project article is currently on FAC, do not send another there.
  5. I suggest a cool off period between consecutive FACs, say 24 hrs, when no project FAC should be live.

If you have just finished an article, do not submit to FAC. Instead submit it to the project subpage for A-class review. Treat this like you would an FAC, and try to be objective when discussing other peoples articles. A-class should be perceived as your "goal" when writing.

FACs should then be selected from the pool of A-class articles. All of these will have passed a quasi-FAC within the project and the FAC nomination should link to the internal review. Please refrain from submitting to FAC articles you wrote, let another project member do that.

Please discuss this, and fast. I'd like to publicise this in the next newsletter. I further suggest a TOTAL moratorium on FAC for the next month, whilst this is implemented. This is not about the quality of our work, but about perceptions of us in the broader community.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this idea. We need to raise some of our lower-class articles first. Also, check the Gustav FAC discussion for a prime example of the problem (note all of the supports from people not in the project). --Coredesat 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is a tempest on a teapot. The vast majority of articles we submit to FAC are met with indifference by most, except a few, editors on FAC; you can't say that this is due to us commenting on FACs. I do not see how guidelines 4 or 5 would even solve anything, except add delay to an already-slow process. Ergo, I oppose all of them. Titoxd(?!?) 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding guideline 4, we have been told in the past not to swamp FAC with tropical cyclone articles. The FAC instructions explicitly say only to list one or two at a time. --Coredesat 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
They say one or two per author. But of course sending seven at a time is a bad idea. I still don't see why we need to restrict ourselves to one concurrent FAC at all times. Titoxd(?!?) 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Tito, I suggest 4/5 in conjunction with a vastly improved use of our A-class review (which is neglected totally atm). If we treat our A-Class as have treated FA-Class (give them an internal FAC), I think we can both keep up the high end work, and stop bad feeling towards us. As for the number at a time, I feel we are getting worse quality reviews now by non-editors. "its another hurricane article who cares?". A moratorium for now is probably a good idea, whilst we review what is a reasonable speed. The more important ones are 1-3 anyway your thoughts on those?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think #1 is irrelevant. I don't think any one of us lacks the common sense to only comment when we have something meaningful to say; if I want to make a comment (like I usually do) about an article being FA quality, except that it needs metrication or something equally minor, and that my support is conditional on that, I don't see why I should have a WikiProject guideline that says the contrary. Rules can be gamed, so when there's no reason to have them, there's no reason to make them.
Number 2 reflects current practice. I don't see why it needs to be codified either.
Number 3 is an awful idea. Why can't I reply to concerns other editors have about articles I created? It makes no sense. There's no reason anyone should have to be subject to that, whether he or she is a member of WPTC or not.
A-Class review and Number 4 are not mutually inclusive.
Number 5 goes against the will of the community; see WP:100K. We want more featured articles, not delays in getting them there.
Overall, I just don't see the ill will on the community. I think users don't comment on our FACs because they're used to us sending high-quality articles there and go use their time in articles that have not been sent by a WikiProject with notoriously high standards, not because nobody cares. That's why I don't think any of these guidelines is desirable, much less necessary. Titoxd(?!?) 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Tito, I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by 2 and 3. They are corollaries to 1: together they say "don't support but if you want to do something else go ahead. Your support is implicit as it is a WPTC nom, it has already been through internal review; and I supported it there." I wouldn't exactly call WP:100K the will of the community, it is an essay and the whole WP:WIF/WP:WINF debate is fresh. The revised process above will churn out vast quantities of A-class articles, which themselves could be interpreted as being the articles talked about in 100K. FA itself is only a badge after all.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) I'm gonna have to agree with Tito on this one. Why spend so much time waiting if they're ready? I don't see much of a need for the supposed A class review. I think we as a project have done enough FA's that we know what we have to do before it's featured-worthy. As for whether we should vote or not, I think perhaps we should specify that we are WPTC members, but I don't think we shouldn't vote. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Hink) Any why can't I explictly support if I want to? You're missing my point here. If I decide to use my support or opposition as a way to improve the article, then I should be allowed to do so. It doesn't make sense to do something such as "Comment. Needs metrication." and then say, "Ok, cool" when that is addressed. It almost makes it seem as if it were an objection that went unaddressed, instead of met. If I am not allowed to say, "Ok, looks better. Support," then there's a negative incentive for any of us to actually comment on FACs at all; what can end up happening is one of us finding something wrong, but keeping our mouth shut. No, thanks.
And I still insist; A-Class and FAC are not mutually exclusive processes. Titoxd(?!?) 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree they aren't exclusive. However, look at how our article progression has gone lately. Its inital review, GA, FA. We can make much better use of A-Class (which is all but inactive these days). Basically I'm proposing we make A-class review a carbon copy of the FAC process. We will then use FAC more as a quality assurance measure on our A-class review by selecting from them. In this way we know our A class stuff is featured quality.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As for A-Class, I'll have to be blunt; unless I'm chasing users to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment, no one ever goes there. I'm the one who promotes articles to A-Class for the most part, and unless more users go there and help, this situation will stay the same. I used to advocate a "Get three users to sign off on A-Class before FAC" rule; I don't know why it was abandoned. Titoxd(?!?) 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh and of course, if we implement A-class review as FAC standard, you will have already raised your comments there and had them all addressed. You should only really be dealing with others comments on FAC then.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really; if I missed the A-Class review, I still should be able to comment on the FAC, and support or oppose as deemed necessary. Titoxd(?!?) 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this seems like a lot of unnecessary instruction creep to me. – Chacor 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else get a headache after reading this conversation? →Cyclone1 22:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Units

I'm wondering if there are set guidelines for the use of metric and imperial units for tropical hurricanes. I've opposed Hurricane Kenna's FAC nom on the basis that it affects Mexico mostly, and so should be using metric values. Hurricanehink responded saying that since the hurricane comes the territory of the National Hurricane Center, it should follow the conventions of the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre. If so, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone goes against such a guideline. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Atlantic and East Pacific hurricanes should have imperial units, since the NHC is the main centre tracking cyclones in those basins, but there should always be metric units provided in brackets for each of them. All other basins should use metric units, then have imperial units in brackets. RaNdOm26 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another reason imperial units should be used for NHC/CPHC storms is not just because they use them, but because they always round to the nearest five. Therefore, when we convert that to metric, we are possibly inferring false precision. Therefore, it's better to give the original scale first. And yes, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone is going against the guideline. --Golbez 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily; the CHC issues forecasts in metric so arguably they could be used too. – Chacor 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But the CHC only issues forecasts for a portion of the storm's lifespan. It would be awkward having the NHC units for half of the storm then switch it to CHC units, which we do not know if they are exactly the same as NHC. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I can answer that question. With the typical TC, the CHC just mirrors the NHC data as long as the storm is outside their AOR; but once its in it they do their own forecasting which means differences (if only minor). Stick to the NHC. Converting units is not OR, and we don't really have a problem with the rounding thing either.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
CHC (and PAGASA) should never have priority unless they are the only ones tracking the storm at the moment, as they are secondary sources. CrazyC83 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Use the main source's units, and convert the rest to maintain unity and consistency within an article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Iniki on Main Page soon

Hurricane Iniki will appear on the main page on March 15. If you have not done so already, click here to start watching it. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can go here. --Coredesat 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)