Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20


Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Met project A class proposal

People in this project might be interested, since the recent chatter involves this project. The link is here. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1955 Hurricane season

The article Wallkill River tells about most serious flooding on the river after two hurricanes hit the Northeastern U.S. while not elaborating further. However the statement is unreferenced.

1955 Atlantic hurricane season does not help, since there are three possible storms, Connie, Diane, and Ione. Though it might be the combined effects of Connie and Diane which are meant.

Please add the missing information and/or reference if you can. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a quick reference from NOAA, and tweaked the wording to reflect that. If you want a more in-depth source (such as one that confirms the most serious flooding), I'm sure a thorough Google search would yield some links for you. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a large document titled "Floods of August-October 1955 New England to North Carolina", Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1420, written by Dean B. Bogart in 1960, which goes into details of the floods during the 1955 hurricane season. It is 854 pages long, and chocked full of minutia relating to river flow within various rivers at various locations, as well as river stage data. Information on the Wallkill river is covered on pages 438-451. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation questions

What is the rationale for adding multiple superfluous categories to storm disambiguation pages? The articles on the actual storms should have the applicable categories, not the disambiguation pages. Having them on both results in redundant entries in the categories. For example, what is the benefit of have both the article Hurricane Diana (1984) and the disambiguation page Hurricane Diana (disambiguation) included in the category Category:1984 Atlantic hurricane season? olderwiser 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had talked about this before, and that the disambig pages weren't supposed to include those cats. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The project page section Storm disambiguation pages has the following guidance Disambiguation pages are categorized by season as well (see Tropical Storm Hazel for an example). See the child categories of Category:Tropical cyclones by season for a complete list of season categories. olderwiser 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

((hurricane disambig))

Currently the category description on Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation says:

Please note: {{hurricane disambig}} is deprecated and should not be used.

I see no reason why that disambig box should be deprecated. I find that disambig box nice since it has extra explanation about what kind of disambig page it is, just like the other specialised disambig boxes like {{airport disambig}} and {{roaddis}}. And it means it is easier to change/update the category name if it is added by a template. So, I want to remove the statement that it is deprecated. I have brought this up for discussion over at Template talk:Hurricane disambig#Reasons for removal of this template. Please discuss there.

Also, we are thinking of adding a "cyclone/hurricane/typhoon" parameter to {{disambig}}, so that we can use for instance {{disambig|cyclone|airport|road}} when a disambig page lists several other things under the same name. The parameter "cyclone" will make {{disambig}} categorise the page into Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation. See discussion at Template talk:Disambig#Yet another branch.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambig pages

Most of them have too many links per entry (they should only have one) and too much punctuation. How about we format them like this Hurricane Claudette? Put the list with the most entries first and call it the Northern Atlantic Ocean? Potapych (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it says "basin independent" but that is impossible to accomplish. Some basins do not categorize storms as "tropical storms." Why are those sometimes the main disambiguation page? It should be Cyclone XXX. Potapych (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Claudette should be at Tropical Storm Claudette, as "tropical storm" is the basin independent term. At least, it's more independent than "Cyclone", which implies a storm in the SHEM, and I personally think of SWIO w/ winds of greater than 74 mph. I like the idea of ordering them by which basin used the name the most. What about when there is an even amount? Also, I wouldn't worry too much about reducing the content there. There are so many dab pages, and they aren't even used that much. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow's TFA

Just so you guys know: Hurricane Linda will be on TFA tomorrow, so put it on your watchlists. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere

Why do we have this? As we don't have a Southern Hemisphere cyclone season article explaining that term we only have a confusing bunch of redirects, lists and pseudo-disambigations and we have the possibility to use SHem as a possible entry to the Basin parameters in the hurricane infobox and the small hurricane infobox. Since I never actually saw an article using it I am wondering for some time but until now I bothered to ask.

Category 1 tropical cyclone (Australian scale)
Tropical storm (SSHWS)
Temporary cyclone south.svg 
Duration November 26 – December 4
Peak intensity 65 km/h (40 mph) (10-min)  996 hPa (mbar)
Tropical cyclone
Tropical storm (SSHWS)
Temporary cyclone south.svg 
Duration November 26 – December 4
Peak intensity 65 km/h (40 mph) (10-min)  996 hPa (mbar)

Appearantly it does make a difference, compare my examples – from left to right Aus and SHem basins with unchanged winds and pressures. So what is this for? --Matthiasb (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the infobox was created prior to us splitting the recent SHEM seasons. Also, keep in mind that we have some older SHEM articles that cover all of the SHEM. For those ones, we need some sort of unity. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
But how much of this conflicts with Wikipedia:No original research? And from where do the intensity classifications in the Template:Infobox Hurricane origin? It does state 10-min winds <34 kt -> Tropical depression; 10-min winds <48 kt -> Tropical cyclon; 10-min winds >48 kt ->Severe tropical cyclone). For me it seems to be some outdated classification which so far was kept to keep it compatible with some old articles which do need doing it all over anyway, e.g. 1996–97 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. However, in October 2008 (the latest dump available for this/me) there was no use of Template:Infobox Hurricane in which the parameter "Basin" was set to "SHem" at all, the same for Template:Infobox Hurricane Small. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I severly doubt it falls under orignal research since the classifications have come from the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity scale. Though 48kts is wrong its should be 63kts as a Severe Tropical Cyclone is equivilant to a Hurricane. Jason Rees (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
One is using the Australian scale and the other is not. Also, in several parts of the globe, the term "tropical cyclone" includes storms we would call "tropical storms" elsewhere, so the first box is based on a scale that divides into more classifications. The 64 knot threshold for "Tropical Cyclone" (or Severe Tropical Cyclone) comes from the official Operational Plan. As far as I know, SHem really isn't used anywhere, but the Southern Hemisphere counts as one basin (It is treated that way by the JTWC). However, some articles are divided by jurisdiction of the warning centers, which has greatly simplified the structure of the articles. Potapych (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You clarified one point thanks. However, the treating of the SH as one basin by the JTWC isn't a deciding matter, since the JTWC is not a relevant body on naming cyclones and operating cyclone warnings under the WMO's operational plans (which has different operational plans for SW Indian Ocean and South East Indian and South Pacific oceans). Actually, the JTWC though highly competent is not reliable enough to state that there exists a "Southern Hemisphere basin". IMO, therefore those articles which are still combined together should be split. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of those can't be split because there are huge chunks of records missing from the relevant warning centers, so JTWC is often the best source for some of these basins. For the time being, most of the articles that can be split have already been split. Potapych (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW: I don't want to insult on anyone, it's only because I've began to translate some of the Aus/SWI/SPac related articles to the German WP and just want to be sure before I'll do the work. Receiving an RfD due to OR isn't fun if you spent several hours on a translation. (I had this problem with my Landfall translation into the German WP.) --Matthiasb (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats fair enough - you seem to be doing ok with them also yeah the seasonal articles will need to be split in due course but lets try and work on the ones we already have split for now Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Faulty dashes and hyphens abound

Hurricane editors should know by now that date ranges are not separated by WP:EMDASHes, rather by WP:ENDASHes. The syntax at {{Infobox Hurricane Small}} is too complicated for me to fix; please address.

Likewise, there is a faulty hyphen in {{Infobox hurricane season}} that should be an WP:ENDASH; pls get hyphens and dashes sorted in all of the hurricane templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Hurricane and Cyclone Projects need a better peer review process to prepare articles before FAC? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those issues that those of us who have been through very few FAC's wouldn't necessarily be aware of. Thanks for the head's up Sandy. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, endash looks just like a hyphen in the edit window. Potapych (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Date style, currency, etc.

This should be discussed here.

I have no objection to using DMY instead of MDY if that is the norm for the countries in that basin.

I think currencies should be converted to US dollars for templates since the US dollar is the de facto international currency. The Australian articles would involve not only Australian dollars, but PGK, Rupiahs, Soloman islands dollars, etc. It would be too complicated to include all, but they could be mentioned in the text.

I also think dates and times should remain in UTC format. The times at landfall could probably be converted to local time if the editor prefers. Editors should be careful to avoid confusion if local time and UTC are on different days.

Please do not make anymore changes to the format without discussing it here first. Potapych (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DMY should be used only were the region uses it as a whole (The Australian region for an example). With currencies I feel that US and local currency could be in the templates since Australia really doesn't use USD (Unless buying from in the US of cause) and with dates and time I feel that local dates and times with the UTC dates and time in brackets. Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should be used USD? Why not Euro, Yen, Suisse franks, Pound sterling??? To answer this myself, we should use the currency used in the specific cyclone's comitee's yearly meeting's report – any converting into any currency only for comparing would be a POV problem. And no, the US dollar is not a de facto international currency. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth

Can you use images from Google Earth with Satelite overlay because I think that you could because the satelite images are from NASA, but does anyone else have a diffrent opinion?

--Yue of the North 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't, Google is trademarked. Cyclonebiskit 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But you can go on because the satellite is from so you'll know if where had the satellite that had been taken. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern hemisphere GANs - aren't the project rules the same?

I was going to review an article for GAN this afternoon (Cyclone Innis (2009)) before I realized that there was no chance that its TCR would be out from Nadi, Fiji. When I asked the person who submitted it to GAN about this, they mentioned that 3 TC's had already been approved for GA from the 2008/2009 season, without TCRs! The rules we follow for GANing individual storm articles are the same for the southern hemisphere as they are up north, aren't they? Thegreatdr (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly SHEM articles should wait. AUS should wait for the monthly summary, SPAC should wait for TCR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
If this remains agreed upon, does it follow that we would need to downgrade the three articles which have passed GA then to C class, to follow with what we do for the northern hemisphere? If memory serves, even with Nadi's monthly report, we have still restricted ourselves to at most a C class, minus a TCR. It turns out one of the three that passed was TD Auring, near the Phillipines 2 months ago at the beginning of January. I'm assuming in its case, since JTWC won't write a report, we'd have to wait for next year's HKO report. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You can use the meeting reports from the WMO. Potapych (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We've had articles get to GA without having the TCR's out before. I don't see why we can't have them at GA if the article uses all currently available information. Cyclonebiskit 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Until these cases, I can't remember an occasion of this. In fact, I remember being advised against GANing Alma at the beginning of June. Do you have any other examples than our three recent ones? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Kika (2008), Tropical Storm Josephine (2008), Hurricane Hernan (2008), Tropical Storm Karina (2008), Typhoon Neoguri (2008), Cyclone Fanele. Those are just off the top of my head, there are probably a few others. Cyclonebiskit 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oy. Two of those articles eventually updated their info based upon the TCR which in a couple cases came out within 10 days after GA passage, so everything turned out fine there. Oddly enough, Kika and Josephine did not. This could lead to a reassessment if the articles for Kika and Josephine are in conflict with their TCRs, so those articles need to be updated...and their talk pages have now been updated per this problem. I guess we have only previously selectively enforced the TCR criteria, mainly for storms with significant impact. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The only one of those that hasnt been updated with TCR data is Fanele which would be impossible at this moment in time, also Daman, Elisa and Gene were passed without the ATCR from Nadi.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


It isnt out offically yet but thanks to Americas Hurricane conference we have found a summuary of a presentation given by the JTWC which uses best track info.

Final figures from JTWC

EPAC, 18
WPAC, 27
NIO, 7
SHEM, 29

Highlights from the report

Cyclone Hondo has become an STY
There are no new systems. Jason Rees (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You are resourceful. The IHC documents are not the easiest to find, and do have a shelf life on the web (2-3 years at most). Thegreatdr (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol thanks David - it means i can now finnally wrap up a few things - i liked your edit summuary by the way Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment

The A-Class review system desperately needs more participants. Any help is greatly appreciated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Already helping out Cyclonebiskit 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Camille collaboration appears to be going well

If you want to help out, the page is temporarily at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Hurricane_Camille. The new page's length is approaching the size of the page out in the main space. Since only 4 people supported the general idea of collaborating on older articles, I haven't added a new section to the project main page. However, that doesn't mean we can't collaborate on articles in a more informal way. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. If you want to continue this, Hugo might be a good second choice since that is coming up on its 20th anniversary. Potapych (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but one article at a time. A problem with the last collaboration was that we were too focused on what to do next. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC).


Its now offically out Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Why should the pre tropical cyclone part erased after the TCR came out? It's useful. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not included in the Best Track in the TCR. Cyclonebiskit 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't quite address HurricaneSpin's point. If there's a reliable source for the information, good information on the initial disturbance should not be erased for storm articles. Think about what this would mean for Kyle (2008), Eloise (1975), as well as other storms which had significant impact prior to TC designation. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's what he was talking about, but then I'm not really sure what he meant. Potapych (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Theres a new rule at FLC that says lists should have 10 or more items - which after disscussion with one of the FL Directors, Hink and myself have interpretated as meaning that seasons that have timelines with under 10 Depressions will not be able to pass. Which means most timelines from the North Indian Ocean, will not be able to pass as the seasons do not have more than 10 Depressions on average. Ive been thinking over the last couple of days on how to make a way around this and ive come up with 3 options. I personally prefer Option 1 as i think it would be easier to do Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 1

Option 2

  • We get rid of all the timelines and merge them into the seasonal articles (Including the ones at FL).

Option 3

  • We merge the NIO ones into timelines of 5 years.


No offense, but can't you just keep them the way they are with out the FLC? --Yue of the North 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 10 depressions != 10 items. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • What I think JR meant, and what I personally believe, is that maybe a timeline shouldn't exist for a season with less than 10 storms. We already established that the 1914 AHS shouldn't get a timeline with its one storm, as it's horribly redundant. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that timelines are redundant for seasons with only a handful of storms; however, I find it perfectly acceptable to write one for five or six storms. Heck, Timeline of the 1914 Atlantic hurricane season fulfilled the 10-item requirement, despite encompassing only one storm. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So you're saying we should have timelines for seasons like 1914 AHS, since they pass the 10-item requirement? Notability is not inherited, and personally I think the timelines should establish notability of the season. It's easy to justify with record seasons, but not so much for a season with only four or five storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I never said that. I said we could. We should have an article on Hurricane Katrina, but we could have a timeline of the 1914 AHS. Also, 1914 was the least active known Atlantic hurricane season, so by your theory the timeline would indeed be justified. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I was just asking for clarification on 1914. And yea, I suppose my "theory" would justify the timeline, but that's why we have common sense not to make a timeline for a season with only one known storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Well, I'm getting back to substantial work on WPTC for the first time since December, but I've hit a wall on my current effort, located at User:Dylan620/Sandbox/Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. I'm currently trying to add a footnote to my timeline regarding the measurement of tropical cyclone estimated sustained wind speed (exaxctly like this, I even copied the HTML into my timeline), but it's not working. Thoughts? --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya! Welcome back to the project. The problem was that you didn't close the last reference, but I got that for you. Good luck with the timeline. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

TFD for Template:Highest ACE Atlantic hurricanes

See here; the project doesn't really use ACE for individual articles, and it's basically unsourced. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone naming in season/storm articles

Since we're on a roll in discussing things, we are having a discussion tonight on tropical cyclone naming. We agreed that naming is fairly trivial, since it's a human-applied activity for natural events. There is a place for some of the trivia, perhaps on Tropical cyclone naming, but not in every tropical cyclone article. Basically, this is the proposal.

To remove everything about naming in all storm articles and storm sections in season articles, 
except for information on subsequent use

It's worth mentioning when the storm was used next. Example: The name was used next in 20XX. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed completely. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the meanings in the WPAC storms post 2000. But im happy to get rid of the useages Jason Rees (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The meanings are irrelevant to articles; the focus of a page should be on the tropical cyclone, not the artificial name to which it was assigned. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should keep the names in the WPac still. --Yue of the North 01:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep for Retired hurricanes, wierd ones like Adele, Kirsten, Joni, keep the ones that have meaning in the West Pacific. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Movement to improve older TC articles to GA/FA status

A couple of us have been chatting about elevating the older TC articles, especially the retirees, to GA or FA status as a project, rather than individually. In years back, vital articles could be sent through the article improvement drive, but that went defunct nearly a year ago. If we created something like "article of the month," like the now-defunct article of the fortnight, where 3+ editors dedicated their time to improve the retirees/TC-related vital articles to GA/FA status, how many people within the project would be interested in contributing to their improvement? I think if we got 5-10 people interested, we should go forward with such a project. I'll take silence as zero, of course. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Some of us have discussed this on IRC over the past several months, so I think there would be at least some interest. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I also like it but one issue I see with getting additional users (meaning drawing new editors into the project instead of just have the "usual" editors) is that making those articles requires a lot of time and effort to get the information, find what's good and what's bad. Then actually write the article. Besides that, sounds good. Cyclonebiskit 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds good to me. My personal aims at the minute are to try and improve some of the spac seasonal articles (including Spac 06-07 somehow) Jason Rees (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To cyclonebiskit...the articles that would need to be improved are already created. It would be a matter of possibly expanding them and/or citing them better. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that the ones you're mainly referring to are ones that have already been made but, to find adequate information for an article like Hurricane Stan would be very hard. Cyclonebiskit 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In Stan's case, it would mainly be the addition of inline refs. There are other articles were it could be difficult, like you've said. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more an issue of people actually doing it. We discuss it, and then there's no initiative to actually start the work. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying there's traditionally been no follow through then? It's not like some of us haven't been doing this already during the past year or two, but it's been done independently. I'm waiting for more than 5 people to support it. So far, it's only 3 or 4. Once 6 people support it, we can start a section within the project page concerning the article of the month. If no one follows through at that point, we can chalk it up as a failure to work together as a project on individual articles, and continue down the path we're on. I think we'd go a lot further as a project if we did this. We'll ultimately be judged by wikipedia as a whole on the quality of articles like Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Gloria, and Hurricane Gilbert (which were picked at random), rather than the non-retirees Thegreatdr (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a collaboration thing could work, and I know how it could work. First, I think any collaboration should start an article completely fresh. Otherwise, there may be attempts to keep unneeded information, and the reason for collaborating might become shadowed. Second, I think if it were to be made fresh, it would have to be in some sort of neutral sandbox, so anyone can work on it, but it's not being shown at all times. As such, I'll bring back an idea that was suggested, which is using a project sandbox. I, for one, think the project should collaborate on Hurricane Camille, seeing as it will be the 40 year anniversary this August. It would be great to have it featured by then, and if we collaborate, we can get it done. I went ahead and made this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Camille. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Even starting fresh, you could include the referenced statements from the current article, which could be the other variation on the theme...removing all unsourced statements within a current article, and seeing what you have left. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just thinking for a collaboration, it'd be easier to start fresh, and have people fill in the blanks. It seems the project is more keen to write things fresh (look at the article creation obsession). Plus, the primary problem with Camille isn't so much the unsourced statements; it's that it's not comprehensive, and that seems to be the problem with our other bigger articles Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Gilbert). For what it's worth, there are some people on the IRC channel that might be interested (I won't name names - they can identify on here). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
YesY Juliancolton (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If it would help involve people to a greater degree, I'd be okay with that. When the sandbox articles improved beyond the quality of the articles already in the main space, they could simply replace them. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Frances is at GAR

Assessment Page: I've put this article at GAR following several discussions with members of the project. In general, the article does not cover enough of the storm to be considered a GA. Input from other members in the project is much appreciated. Cyclonebiskit 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Noel (2001) - move?

I've been thinking, and I'm a bit unsatisfied with that article, for the reason that most of the content there is under the wrong title. Most of that article is on a storm that brought strong winds to Atlantic Canada in November 2001, and was actually listed as one of the top 10 weather events in Canada in 2001. I wrote the article, and the reason I put it under Noel's article was that the event was only loosely related to Noel, in that it absorbed it and became stronger. I regret the article choice now, and basically, I think the impact should be part of, say, November 2001 Canada storm.

One solution would be to move it, and then greatly reduce the focus on Noel. The alternative solution would be to create a new article, move the impact over there, and be left with a more bare article on Noel. Any thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to go with the latter option, so no valuable content is lost. Otherwise I'm all for it. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, no content would be lost. I'd just put it in the season article, like a usual merge. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ike is not a core article to this project

We agreed a couple years back to restrict the core articles to some of the general met articles, as well as 1-2 storms per basin. I think of storms which hit Texas more worthy than Ike (Carla and Beulah come to mind), if Ike is considered one of our project's 13-14 core articles. That alone disallows Ike. Hence, I removed Ike from that list, and it is appropriately listed on our long vital articles list. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the second-most viewed article of the entire project, behind only Katrina, I think that should lean towards Ike being a core article, but it probably would be best to wait a year or two and see how memorable it really was. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's only because it was retired this past year. Carla and Beulah had significantly greater impact, and had a more significant impact in Texas both wind and rainwise. Based on its viewership, we should make sure it is of high importance then. The question to ask is "Would an encyclopedia carry an article on Hurricane Ike?" Camille, Katrina, Andrew, the Galveston Hurricane, 1938 Long Island Express, 1926 Miami Hurricane, sure. Carla, Hugo, and Beulah, maybe. Ike, in my opinion, no, similar to other throw away category 2/3 hurricanes which had a minimal death toll and average to below average rain impact. Keep in mind that this core article list was meant to be small, and was originally capped at 10 articles. So far, the project doesn't appear to have tackled their improvement; maybe its purpose has become lost/forgotten over the years. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm, good point, but rainfall Ike really wasn't a "throw away category 2/3 hurricane", it was the third costliest storm to ever hit the US (and likely in the top-five worldwide). Storms after Katrina that have the kind of effect of Ike are also likely to get a lot of attention due to the new-found fear of hurricanes in the United States. I'm not sure on the exact number, but I believe Ike did trigger one of the largest evacuations in the united states in addition to the tens of millions of people it affected from the Caribbean to Canada. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. If damage totals are adjusted just for inflation, Ike comes in third. If adjusted for inflation and population change, Ike is 9th. Any storm that is or forecast to be a category 3+ hurricane is going to lead to mass evacuations. I remember well when Gloria became the largest US population from a storm, then it was Andrew, then it was Floyd, then it was Katrina, and now Ike. If you look at our vital article list, many of those hurricane articles mention they were the largest US evacuations from tropical cyclones up to that time. Population increases, particularly within 50 miles of the coast, are invariably going to lead to evacuation numbers to increase over the years. If we agree to continue only using the top 1 or 2 storms per basin in the core article section, Ike is ranked too low to make it, based upon any of these figures. Based upon deaths, assuming all of Ike's deaths were in the US (and they weren't), Ike would rank in the 20s. Is Ike vital to the project? Sure. Is it one of the top two Atlantic tropical cyclones of all time, no. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just some more extreme tropical cyclones: Mitch, Bhola cyclone, few other unnamed NIO cyclones, Tip, Gilbert, Hugo, Allen why can't people remember storms in the 70s 80s and 90s. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I'm divided if it deserves to be top, right now, but perhaps it'll be lowered over time. If there was a tropical cyclone encyclopedia released this year, inevitably it would have a section on Ike, due to the high (recent) interest in it. Ten years from now, in a more general encyclopedia, it probably wouldn't get the attention. Should we base importance on how important it is right now, or should it be based on how it would be judged from a time vacuum? If it is the former, then more recent storms would be considered more important; this is not necessarily a bad thing, since more recent storms do get a lot of attention. If it is the latter, then that means a more evenly distributed attention across the seasons, which also wouldn't be a bad thing. As usual, I can't make a decision, but I still want to put my own uncertainty into words. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I would say Ike is a High. It's not Top, but it's more of a Gilbert-type storm, as it did cause large devastation in a urban area (Gilbert did it in Cancún, Ike in Galveston). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A possible guide for article improvement

Now that the cat is out of the bag about article viewership within the project, perhaps this page can become a guide for which articles to improve to GA/FA next. I see that people want to rate importance by viewership, which is one way to do so. So why not improve the articles which the masses flock to most? It definitely looks like we were in line with the public need in the eastern Pacific. It's the Atlantic where our interests as a project don't overlap as well with the public need. Just a thought. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's how I'm going to do my FA's from now on. I'm pleasantly surprised to see the top 6 viewed EPAC articles are all featured, followed by three GA's and four more FA's. Granted, articles are viewed more because they are featured, but it's still a good way to look at things. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Track map program.

If you are running Mac OS X, I strongly suggest you set this up on your computer. It's not really fair to have one or two people make all of them when it is so easy to get started yourself. The difficult part is formatting data into HURDAT format because of the amount of time this can consume. I can answer questions about Mac installations, but I can't help with other platforms. If you tried this before, maybe it was before Jdorje fixed it a few months ago. Potapych (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would install it on my computer but i dont think it works with Windows XP does it? Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I'm using Mac OS X, can you lead me step by step on how to do it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Article navigation template

User:Allstrak recently created {{Tropicalcyclone}} as an alternative to {{tropical cyclone}}, and has transcluded it onto a few articles. I personally like the idea of a collapsible navigation template, but I figured it should be brought here for discussion before substituting it in. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea as well though i would strongly recommend including links to the lists of historic cyclone names and the retired storms lists. Jason Rees (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I consider the using of collapsible templates as a disease which should strongly be fighted against. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why - wats wrong with them? Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, pleas be clear about what you want to say, and don't compare it with an disease All strak(Talks page!) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wind is up for FAC

Although technically part of the broader meteorology project, I thought I'd let you all know that wind is up for FAC. I placed it in the template for this project, since it is related. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2004–05 South Pacific cyclone season

Is this really top-importance? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on how you look at it. From a basin standpoint, it is. No other season has produced a spree of severe tropical cyclones like that before. The severity of damage has been considered historical in the Cook Islands and has even made it into books about the islands themselves. Regarding the other point of view, a worldwide one, it is high importance. Several WPac seasons have produced more Cat:5s in a month than the 04-05 SPac and have been substantially deadlier and damaging. The South Pacific generally has low death tolls and low damages due to the islands being small and lightly populated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I really think we should be doing importance on a worldwide point of view. Should the most important storm in the SPAC really be considered as important as the most important storm in the NIO? I would certainly hope not. The SPAC has a total population of less than 10 million. The Atlantic has over 200 million (population of territories along the coast), and the NIO and WPAC are both higher than that. Or, we could end all of the discussion and get rid of the importance category. Don't kill me Tito! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We've had this debate before, haven't we? Wikipedia would imply uniform standards should be used globally, but that standard would appear to favor more developed and populated countries such as the United States, China, Japan, and India, which in my point of view would introduce point of view issues concerning importance. I don't see an easy answer here. I'm leaning towards applying different standards for each basin, so the importance doesn't get unduly weighted towards Asian and North American tropical cyclones. Some of the wikipedia standards are contradictory, which has been noted in FAC recently. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you wrote it in small text tells me you already know what I think of that idea... :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, newspapers pay more attention to the more developed countries. It's more likely that a reader will be from one of those four articles. How can a South Pacific cyclone be considered more important than a North Indian cyclone? Although, that brings up the question which we haven't resolved. Is it importance to the project, or importance to Wikipedia in general? The page view stats show what storms are viewed more by Wikipedia overall. Should importance be roughly by page views, perhaps? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That is the most objective criteria, and doesn't require us to hash out what wikipedia really means in its standards. I do not see us having a role in creating a wikipedia version of the mishna, which would take up precious time we could be using towards otherwise improving articles. I'm fine with the article views determining importance...we just have to check these from time to time and monitor changes, particularly to storms from 2008, that could be high/top importance now, but merely mid importance in a couple years. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pacific typhoon season articles

I thought it was settled that JMA information would be used from years 2000 and on, and JTWC would be the primary source from 1999 and earlier. (And it's not like you have any choice since JMA doesn't make earlier reports easily available if they even exist.) I noticed that pressure data in the infoboxes has been mixed up in a lot of those articles, so someone needs to go through them and fix them. Potapych (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends which infoboxes you're speaking of. There are options in the storm infoboxes of using both sources of information, if you're merely talking about individual storms within the season article. Even though contentwise, using JTWC makes sense, it turns out that JMA has been the RSMC for some time. For the season boxes, we should probably be using JMA info back into the 1980s, unless we develop an option to use both sources of info, similar to the individual storm infoboxes within the season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The individual boxes have just one pressure and one wind reading displayed. The problem is that so many of these are mixed up between the different sources, and that they should all have the same source. RSMC doesn't matter too much since only JTWC has ALL the storms covered in the articles. You can't have severe tropical storms side-by-side super typhoons. That's what this project agreed on, but then I noticed the mix of data. Potapych (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A semantics time-out has been called. What do you mean by "individual boxes"? Some articles don't have a modern version of infoboxes for individual storms, which has been forced to be changed/upgraded for seasons which have undergone GAN. Check out the 1981-1986 Pacific typhoon seasons and see if the season articles you are working on use the same infoboxes. We need to be sure we're on the same page if this topic is going to be discussed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Individual boxes = individual infoboxes for each system. I took a quick glance at 1981 Pacific typhoon season and there are some problems there. There are no mentions of JMA but the pressures appear to be taken from there. The article should use one warning center for all the systems (and that is only possible to do with JTWC). Potapych (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We agreed a while back to use all relevant information, because the differences seen between JMA and JTWC are not mere adjustments for 1 to 10 minute sustained winds, which resolved disputes within the project. Otherwise, why would those infoboxes be designed that way? As long as the JMA info is in there, that's all that really matters, since they are the RSMC. Ask hurricanehink about it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. The pressures from JTWC were removed from some of the infoboxes and replaced with ones from the JMA. That causes a lot of inconsistencies, especially since the project had decided to do the pre-2000 articles from JTWC's perspective thanks to the dearth of information from JMA for that era (and also the lack of coverage for many named systems). I don't like how some of the boxes display the 10 minute value and some display the 1-min value, but that's because the 10 minute values take priority over the 1-minute values. (Maybe someone will fix that one day). Potapych (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Potapych a lot more info has become available from JMA in recent years and because the JTWC is unoffical we have to use what is offical which is the JMA. Also for 97, 98 & 99 we can also use GP as a source of infomation.Jason Rees (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Jason Rees you have to be consistent with your primary source, which is JTWC. Don't confuse the guideline about RSMCs with laws because the project had already settled this issue. In those early years Gary Padgett was writing from JTWC information. He probably hasn't written much about those storms recognized only by JMA. You guys who keep changing everything around are just opening more cans of worms. Potapych (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
JMA has to be the primary source as they were the RSMC at the time - the JTWC was not and is not recognised by the WMO. Picking a GP summuary from those 3 years at random he uses JMA as his primary source with JTWC and PAG as secondry sources and it includes a lot on storms not picked up by the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I randomly picked a couple of summaries from Padgett for 98 [1] and 99 [2] and he says his summaries are based on JTWC advisories. Potapych (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So the JMA is still offical for the WPAC and thus should be used. Jason Rees (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That has been tested and changed back because it was unworkable, so stop declaring things to be rules. If you're writing a summary you have to be careful when using two sets of data because it is extremely confusing to readers who might wonder why there are two. RSMCs are unimportant in articles (unless the article is about the RSMC itself), so season articles should be discussing the cyclone seasons and not the foibles of each forecasting center. For the articles that were changed - there's just no way to compare these systems anymore. Potapych (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it comes down to two viewpoints. 1) Do we go by what is official now, or 2) Do we go by what was more commonly used *then*? For the Atlantic, there's little debate. We use HURDAT, and we supplement it by MWR and such. So, what if we applied it to another non-NHC basin. Should we use JTWC or BoM pre-2000? What about MFR? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Potapych Youre the one declaring the rules im just giving my opinion - Also i think you will find that JMA data does work as being the primary source and also i know how to write a summuary using two or more data sets, and quite frankly its really easy.
@Hink - The answer to that is quite simple JMA MFR BOM IMD and NADI data should be used pre 2000 as they are the offical warning centers not the JTWC. Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, it was more rhetorical, but I think that puts it into context well. We wouldn't not use BoM or MFR data for pre-2000, since they both have just as good of archives as the JMA. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{2008 Pacific typhoon season buttons}}

I'm thinking of nominating this at TfD because it does not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with JMA's system of numbering. There is no explanation to be found near the template, and I don't think one of these should be created for every season. Potapych (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That could easily be fixed. I'll take a look. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's in chronological order, so I'm not sure how it could be viewed as confusing. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There are 31 storms listed and only 22 buttons. You have to remember that most people have no idea what these numbers are for. Potapych (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly dissagree a button bar is needed for evrey season as they all could potentally be turned into Featured Topics with them all needing to be linked - Also thats not an excuse to go and TFD it as we have valid reasons for using the number JMA assigns when a depression is upgraded - The names are to simular to each other. Jason Rees (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean you disagree that they're not needed? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Potapych, these templates are for easy access to articles, it's still under construction as Jason is working on rewriting the article, adding the missing JMA TDs in the process. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't even do that. There are two articles - Tropical Depression Gener (2008) and Tropical Storm Kika (2008) - that are not included. So, it is not a full list of links and it relies on a numbering system that doesn't make sense to most readers. To make things more confusing, there are 31 storms (which are numbered by the TOC) and only 22 buttons. Potapych (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That's still not a reason to delete the template. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
But it is a reason to look at the template and see how we can improve on it, and I agree that it is far from ideal in its current form. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But I agree with Jason that a navigational aid of some sort is needed, so deleting the template while it can be fixed seems to be, at least to me, a non-starter. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Some didn't agree with using letters and changed it to numbers. I think using numbers is unsatisfactory (and more confusing), so it's at a complete stalemate. Who says buttons are the answer? If not, then this template isn't needed and it could be deleted. Potapych (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea: what about something collapsible in the Infobox? Just look at a random Simpsons episode - it has all of the episodes in a season neatly at the top. That way, we could put the full name in, and avoid the numbers and letters completely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Potapych, why the extremes? Keep or it must go? Seriously, compromise on improving things before attempting to destroy them. We used numbers because our original plan of using letters backfired with Kalmaegi and Kammuri last year. By both way, using the first and second letter or first letter of the syllables, they're the same, so going by number worked much better. Hurricanehink, how would that be formatted in individual storm articles? it seems a bit silly as when opened, it can mess up an article quite easily. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
IDK how it would be formatted, but at least it's something different from the button bars, which I personally never liked. Would it hurt to try it and discuss it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess it wouldn't hurt to discuss a collapsible infobox ;) Discuss away hink. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly how I proposed - the list of storms would be collapsible, with links to each storm. We could make sure the images are left-aligned where it looks messy. IDK, anyone else have any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm certain someone will put that on their lists of objections if one of those articles ever shows up for FAN. No one has ever asked a normal reader if they could figure it out. It is certainly not extreme because you are supposed to delete unused templates. Potapych (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that the template is being used, it's in every article related to the season. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Used in 20+ articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm listing in Infobox

Check it out. I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution to the button bar problem, but I like it more than the button bars, which I do feel are confusing. There could be some tweaking, but I really like this approach of listing the storms in the Infobox. Yes, that would mean making a template for each season, but I really don't think we need one of those if it's a season with only one article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Infoboxes are meant for quick information and not to substitute navigation templates. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is that the case? I already mentioned above the Simpsons episode, which I think works very well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont think it would work as not all TCs are worthy of an article and would become too long in some of the PTS. Jason Rees (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Storms without articles can pipe-link to their respective sections in the season article. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Or, they just wouldn't be linked. The button bar does the same thing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to point out that there exists the this WikiProject which works on facilating the use of infobox contents as databases. See for example this table. Mixing in navigation elements would make the data provided in the hurricane infoboxes useless. (However I must ask Kolossos if something went wrong with the EN:WP data daump since it seems very much truncated in this moment, the linked table is based on a dump from last year, but many templates don't appear on the latest list.) --Matthiasb (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
But you're not really addressing that it could work well for tropical cyclones, and that it does work well for the Simpsons episodes. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't like such solutions and especially for infoboxes. Infoboxes are for quick and short reader information. And maybe they will be used in future for additional database functions. Conidering that there are different MoS pages for the both , see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) vs. Wikipedia:Navigation templates I understand that mixing both kinds of template into one isn't what the community wishes. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't like the storm listing in the infobox. Throughout Wikipedia, navigation templates are either independent from infoboxes (in articles that do not warrant infoboxes, such as tropical cyclone) or are at the bottom (see any given storm article). Mixing the two would violate the principle of least astonishment. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 11:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Hurricane Small}}

Though it does not result in a different appearing of articles we should keep the parameter entries of the small hurricane infoboxes in the same order, as per documentation Basin/Image/Track/Formed/Dissipated/1-min winds/Pressure (with the modification where applicable). In many instances trackmap or sat image are included following the pressure or other data. That makes controlling of such articles harder.

Related to this I wonder why sometimes those parameters are not included already when a depression develops but editors seem to add them in rather, after trackmaps and/or satellite images are available. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was originally designed to keep the same parameter names as {{Infobox Hurricane}}, so that we could just add "small" to the template name and it would render properly. I'm not sure if someone has changed it since then... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The old infobox that is deperecated needs orphaning if poissible. shows he aoutstanding uses. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

I will try and get some of them removed.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I did 1963 and 1965 Pacific typhoon seasons and I will do some more this afternoon or tomorrow. --Anhamirak 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move of several article " Subtropical Storm One" (eg. Subtropical Storm One (1978))

I think that move wasn't well considered with insight. Actually that's how canonical institutions "name" that storm. Neither NHC or the NWS and other meteorological institutions use "1978 January subtropical storm", that titel does not exist outside Wikipedia. Such an article name is Wikipedia:Original research. Hurricanehink, please move them back. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we agreed to put names for unnamed storms (like 1987 Gulf Coast tropical storm), so I don't see why we cannot. --Anhamirak 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Because they are not established and are not used by third party. Thinking out names isn't allowed for Wikipedia. We shall only use names already established elsewhere. "Subtropical Storm One" is established by the NHC and others, "1978 January subtropical storm" is something a Wikipedian thought out (and exists nowhere else, see the Google link above). That's not allowed. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Try to Google your example: The eight hits for 1987 Gulf Coast tropical storm without -wiki and -wikipedia are still some wiki-mirrors. Though the storm itself isn't original research the name of the article is the try to establish that name elsewhere. The HPC f.ex. says, it's Unnamed Tropical Storm and so does more than 6000 other places in the web. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
PS:Please provide where we agreed on inventing names like this (although such an agreement doesn't go along with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). --Matthiasb (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it is at talk:1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane --Anhamirak 14:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Projectwide, the last time this came up was last September, but it's come up before. The renaming was meant to address years with multiple unnamed storms. It seems like whatever we do in those cases, we are forced to rename them, somehow. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not just leave them? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the Pacific Northwest like this …
…or rather like that …
… however, it seems that the "Pacific Northwest Hurricane" is quite out of range of the region.
@Thegreatdr: If I understood correctly, we're (mass-)renaming storms and are thinking out names nobody is using only because of some cases in which more than one unnamed storm occured in one season a region? See, the naming of hurricanes was invented in 1950 (and used in other basins later) but before there were numbered. That is the common name of those storms. Inventing now names like 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane is rewriting history. (1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane is a really suboptimal solution, since that is actually POV pure... for people on, let's say Guam, it is far in the Northeast. (The article Pacific Northwest though has it's own issue, it's lacking of sources. So please define Pacific Northwest correctly first before naming a storm like that.)
There have been storms like the Labor Day Hurricane, or other of thos (in)famous 'canes before the current naming system was introduced, especially names for Saints as it was common in earlier times, (e.g. Hurricane San Ciriaco) but, sorry, calling 1933 Outer Banks hurricane Outer Banks Hurricane is telling fairy-tales. When we started this naming pattern some time ago we made a mistake. We should stop that now and revert it. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
PS:Or should we do also Tropical Depression One-E (2009) into 2009 Mid-June Baja California tropical depression? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
For the Pacific Northwest Hurricane, can't we just change it to Northwest Pacific hurricane or Central Pacific hurricane (it was the only storm of the year in the CPac). But for TD 1-E, it should stay that way because it was numbered. The Pacific Northwest Hurricane, the Gulf Coast Tropical Storm, and the Nova Scotia Tropical Storm all were not given a name and were recognized post-season. --Anhamirak 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why not just do what WP:METEO does, and when faced with two unnamed hurricanes, do something like "June 1970 unnamed hurricane" and "August 1970 unnamed hurricane", or "Unnamed hurricane (June 1970)" and "Unnamed hurricane (August 1970)" That way it isn't WP:OR, it's descriptive (and not ambiguous like choosing a region to name it after). -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oy. If the system was numbered in real-time, like a tropical depression, just listing the number would work. HURDAT doesn't work in that manner for TCs of tropical storm strength, however, unless they were subtropical cyclones during the mid 1970s-2000 period or the pre-1971 period. If there is only one unnamed tropical cyclone per month, that could work. Sometimes there is more than one unnamed TC per month. Then what do you do? Placing in the region in those cases clarifies the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
@RunningonbrainsAnhamirak: The criticized 1978 January subtropical storm was numbered as well, it was Subtropical Storm One (1978), with storm correctly used as a proper noun, so it doesn't differ from TD 1-E.
@David: Well, the NHC should certainly explain, why they numbered both the unnamed storm as well as Beryl with AL022006, see TCR-PDF above and Beryl-TCR-PDF, maybe a mistake, if you compare with the name of the PDF in the unnamed storm case.
@All: What's bad with Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006)? (Or, for the HPC, see this one (that's what Anhamirak used to name 1987 Gulf Coast Tropical Storm in his example), again the NHC used it correctly as a proper noun. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"What's bad with Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006)?" - It wouldnt work, there are too many unnamed tropical storms. We pottentially have a clash between basin title.- If an SWIO Depression were to ever require an article it would go to the same place as the Atlantic ones as Reunion does not have an identifer my suggestion would be to Move the atlantic ones to use the Atlantic identifer (L).Jason Rees (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It wouldnt work, there are too many unnamed tropical storms. Can you source this presumption, please? (I know that the Not-NHC-basins are underrepresented concerning articles.) --Matthiasb (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That really doesn't need a source; it's common sense. There are dozens of unnamed tropical cyclones every year, and most likely hundreds of thousands of unnamed storms. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Dozens? We're not talking of tropical depressions. We're talking about storms which normally would have gotten a name by the RSMC but operationally weren't named. All in all, I guess we're talking about a handful within a decade. And we're talking about "unnamed" storms, which weren't named because naming was introduced yet. There is exactly one Subtropical Storm One (1978), exactly one Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006) (in the Atlantic, so maybe Atlantic Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006) might be the choice; "Unnamed Tropical Storm" is the official name for that event by the NHC) und there is exactly one Atlantic Hurricane One (1932) (which I didn't look uo wether it actually has an article, I shot into the blue) --Matthiasb (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah there were seven systems last year that would off got named but were not named and youre suggestion 'Atlantic Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006)' is far too clunky to be considred. It would be good if hink did contribute to this conversation but some how i doubt he will get chance too. Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Seven, are you sure? (Couldn't help but ask) --Anhamirak 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes im sure Jason Rees (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if looking up the 2008 atlantic, pacific, pacific, and 2007–2009 Southern hemisphare seasons I do find actually no storms in the atlantic, no in the Pacific and no in the Northern Indic with BF 8+, which weren't named by the RSMCs. There also wasn't any in the Australian region (speaking of January 2008 to December 2008), in MFs area or Fiji's. Are we talking about the same issue? --Matthiasb (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 4 Tropical Storms in the WPAC 1 in the SPAC and 2 in the Aus - They all reached Tropical Storm Strength but were not named by the RSMC/TCWC and thus would need the unnamed Tropical Storm title. Jason Rees (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So there are our articles wrong? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this whole debate shows up the weakness of the whole general tropical storm article. You can defend it as an article if someone has given it a name rather than a number. But I would argue that the name is just another form of listing. Why must they have their own articles? So you can notch up another FA? This whole phenomenon is akin to trainspotting. In that case it doesn't matter if the train has no name because the trainspotter still writes it down in their book. Polargeo (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little late to join in on the argument but I just noticed a mistake in one of Matthiasb's comments. Concerning TS Beryl and the Unnamed storm in 2006, the NHC used AL022006 for Beryl and AL502006 for the unnamed storm, just as AL502004 was used for Catarina in 2004. So they don't have the same numbering. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well they made in fact the mistake in the TCR-PDF, look the second line here. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
@Polargeo: It is not about wether those articles should be or should not be. It is about wether it is correct to "invent" titles for storms no other person outside the wikipedia is using. That's what I am contesting. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ways to make to project better

Instead of going inactive, I say that we start to work on whats important. We could do a collab for Andrew or a good topic drive for the 2005 AHS. Our goal as a project should be to get all of these articles below to GA status.

1992 Pacific hurricane season Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Kathleen (1976) Hurricane Camile
Hurricane Paul (1982) Hurricane Ike
Hurricane Liza (1976) Hurricane Rita
Hurricane Stan
Hurricane Wilma

Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

It's a good idea, but we tried that with Camille in March and only got a few people to work on it, and it still isn't up to GA standards, though it did improve the article. Right now, there are people working on older storm articles, particularly within the year 1987, so I think it'll be done more organically anyhow in the coming months and years. Recently, Hazel was upgraded to GA, so there is progress in that direction. One thing I've been trying to do over the past year or two is to award barnstars to people to work on previously abandoned articles of older storms which make it to GAN. Hink has come up with other ways to encourage improvement of articles as well over the years, occasionally volunteering to improve articles of an individual's choice to FA if they improve an article to FA themselves. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it worth it to give a collab another try. We should start with something easy like Kathleen (1976) or 1992 PHS. This means we create Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Kathleen today. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
As DR said some of us are working on whats important - Im trying to focus on bringing the SPAC retires up to scratch.Jason Rees (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Forced and timed collaborations seldom result in quality content, especially within the more secluded WikiProjects. We don't need a formal sub-page to improve existing articles. Of course, I'm guilty of ignoring the significant articles as well.Juliancolton | Talk 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What I find interesting is that the dearth of tropical cyclone activity in the Northern Hemisphere appears to be helping out contributions to the older articles. If true, I hope the UK forecast for the season in the North Atlantic is correct, with only 6 storms of TS strength. By the way, keep an eye out during the next year for a Science article about the influence on warm (above average temperature) pools of water in the central and eastern tropical Pacific on the North Atlantic tropics and mid-latitudes. It's good stuff, and could be added to a few of the project's current articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah its good to have a break from active TCs - gives us chance to catch up. Jason Rees (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This abstract? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The paper is 4-6 pages, and hasn't gone to press yet. At least I didn't think so. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Its back - but we have a problem. All of the archives have not reappeared yet. Now i fear they are gone for ever but i think i have a solution for some of the archives Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they still fix, since the link for contact, legal information and privacy don't work as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Has Webcite crashed again because all of the newly archived JMA and PAGASA data for TD 08 (Huaning) is gone. --Anhamirak 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
JMA and PAGASA data can be sourced back to Typhoon 2000, however he doesnt include the signals from PAG.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks --Anhamirak 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be working ok now with all archives back.Jason Rees (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Some missing trinkets

I remember seeing info on current storms that wasn't written into current storms like TS Carlos. To be more specific, this revision of 2008 Atlantic hurricane season listed Hurricane Paloma's then-current storm information, a list of watches and warnings, and links to the NHC's latest public advisory and forecast/advisory on the storm. I am disappointed to see this information missing at Carlos' section on the 2009 Pacific hurricane season article. Before adding the information myself, I'd like to get a rough WPTC consensus on it. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing is that there are no watches or warnings currently up for any land areas, as for the current storm information, there's just lest interest in the EPac so the people who originally made that probably aren't editing the PHS articles. You don't really even need consensus for something non-controversial too, you can just add it yourself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, will fix it after this post. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation (meteorology) peer review and possible FAC run

A couple days ago, I placed the precipitation article up for peer review, which has already yielded an important comment on the met project talk page. Since precipitation is strongly related to tropical cyclones, I thought I'd place a comment here, in case anyone within this project wished to comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Ioke

Just to let people know: Hurricane Ioke is up on the main page tommorrow. Jason Rees (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Over categorization of hurricane disambiguation pages

JulianColton and I recently had a discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Hurricane Humberto regarding the overcategorization of tropical storm disambiguation pages, and he recommended I notify you all about it. Basically, the dab pages are being categorized not only in the proper dab categories, but also in the pages for articles about tropical storms. This is now getting fixed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah one look at Tropical Storm Nancy, proves that their is a lot of Over categorization with the articles.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. By the way, if anyone wants to repair any "holes" that this may leave behind (i.e. no entry for a named storm in a given season), go ahead and create categorized redirects like I did for Tropical Storm Pablo (1995). Doing that will give every named storm in a season an entry in the categories, though I'm on the fence about whether it's completely necessary.
On that same note, the tropical storm disambiguation pages need a lot of cleanup to conform to disambiguation page standards. Lots of extra links and non-standard formatting. I've cleaned up Hurricane Humberto to bring it to standards. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... that's it for tonight. I've removed the over-the-top categories for all the subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation except for Category:Pacific hurricane disambiguation and Category:Pacific typhoon disambiguation, though I admit there's some overlap with the others in these. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific hurricanes completed. Now all that's left are Pacific typhoons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the Typhoons are done as well the only ones that havent been checked are pre 1990.Jason Rees (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You are awesome! Thanks for finishing what I started. Now we just need to clean these disambiguation pages up a bit... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that we've missed this

I'm extremely shocked that no one noticed this before but Tropical Storm Javier in 1998 was one of the costliest and deadliest storms in the basin. Officials confirmed at least 162 fatalities, with reports of over 1,000 deaths, and damages are at least $1.5 billion. Since this will take a lot of searching to get good information, I've started a project sandbox located at this link. We'll probably need editors who have archives that cost money to help out a lot, such as Cool3 (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) (we can contact him via email) to gather more information as there is bound to be many news reports on the flooding. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Im sure weve missed several storms that have caused over 1000 deaths. Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the 1998 Pacific hurricane season is a featured article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This and this should help. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Verification issues in season timelines

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


heads-up, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)