Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 30

Task force?

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

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

How about using the taskforces we already have?Jason Rees (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The current taskforces, IMO, are too broad. One is for every single storm in the project, and one is for every single season. For editors who are interested in one basin (as many of us are), that isn't ideal, as they might like working on both seasons and storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is a good idea. What should they goals for the EPAC be? YE Tropical Cyclone 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, to have every season be a GA or better, and ideally get every storm article to GA. The EPAC is actually much further along than the Atlantic. The EPAC best track is only one third of how long the Atlantic one is, and far fewer storms affect land. In fact, the biggest work would probably be getting the more recent seasons finished. A lot of the older seasons don't have sub-articles (and arguably wouldn't need, given the lack of sources the EPAC tends to have). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally think the 2010 and 2009 PHS are in decent shape, its 2004, 2007, and 2008 that need some work. Anway, should we do the same for the WPAC? YE Tropical Cyclone 16:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think for starters, just Atlantic and EPAC are warranted at the moment. As sad as it is to say, no one really cares about the other basins, and all of the others need a ton of work. The Atlantic and EPAC are closer to actually being... done (for lack of a better word). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It's doable, but people would need to populate the task force assessment categories. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

A Pacific one was created, BTW. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
How would this work exactly? Would some articles now be within multiple task forces? Thegreatdr (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, that would be the plan. I think we should implement this soon, before the start of the busy part of the season. That is, provided no one disagrees. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
With the change of {{hurricane}} to {{WPBannerMeta}} format (thanks WOSlinker!), both task forces are live. You can add |atl-task-force=yes and |epac-task-force=yes to the template to populate the assessment categories. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I love the mini images (Tip hitting JR and Tip hitting Hawaii), but they're impossible to see in the template. Do you think they should be bigger, or should we get a new pic for that? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Those should be fixed, and the thumbnail will appear whenever the images' cache expires or Bug 28613 is fixed, whichever is first. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, every ATL or EPAC article is gonna need that extra small bit in their talkpage? Just wondering, can a bot or AWB do that? Darren23Edits|Mail 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes to both. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Project project

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

Hmmmm. I'm not sure about this one. I don't see a glossary as something you'd find in an encyclopedia. Are there examples of glossary articles in other projects? Would this fall under list class since a glossary is just a list of terms? Curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We have plenty of such glossaries, like glossary of association football terms or glossary of musical terminology. See also WP:MOSGLOSS. Obviously the class would be up to your project to decide, but certainly we would expect to see such an article at WP:FLC rather than at FAC. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
We have a Manual of Style for glossaries? o.O Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is exactly word-for-word with the NHC Glossary page, with the exception of HURDAT.--12george1 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a question: what words do you actually include. There are some words in there (probably because it was a quick draft or something) which don't really pertain to anything anyone else outside the NHC would use? There are some words with varying definitions. Should the words be of use worldwide? And should we also include words in WP:WPTC/J? Darren23Edits|Mail 04:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If in doubt, add it. And yes, it is copied off from a PD source. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How we use HURDAT

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

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

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

Data analysis falls very comfortably under WP:CALC. Nothing we derive from HURDAT can possibly go beyond simple plotting and/or algebra. Juliancolton (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think that falls under WP:CALC. The policy refers to "routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". I wouldn't say it's any of the three. Searching through an entire dataset is hardly routine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
How can it be original research if HURDAT already did the research? It's research, but hardly original. Juliancolton (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
HURDAT didn't do the original research that we're claiming... They didn't make the claims that we make. It's like taking stuff from a book and writing your own analysis about it. We just can't do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all like reading a book and synthesizing claims from it. Words are subjective, numbers are unambiguous. Honestly, this is a non-issue when we have at best 1 active editor in the project even working on articles. Juliancolton (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's something to consider when and if the project becomes active again. And I'm pretty sure HURDAT is a good example of a primary source, seeing as it falls under "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Using HURDAT to find "records" like the ones I listed is certainly interpreting. I'd like if someone else inserted their opinion, since no offense JC, you're just going to disagree with me as we've done endless times in the past! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agreed with the above thread! :( Juliancolton (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just think it's a real stretch to make up some claim and cite it to HURDAT, when no one else has said such a claim. I'm just uneasy in doing such a practice, but it also suggests such claims may be trivial. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont know if it is OR but there is quite a bit of logic missing and assumption associated with these compass records. We are assuming that there have never been any other TC's because their not in HURDAT, but as the Hurricane Committee said in its final report for 2009 - "Records indicate that no other cyclone has become a tropical storm as far northeast over the Atlantic Ocean as did Grace, but like Hurricane Fred, it would have been difficult to identify and assess the intensity of tropical cyclones in this part of the Atlantic basin before the use of reliable satellite intensity techniques began in 1972." - Also its worth noting that MF:N were arguing last year that Grace was not a TC and looked like an ordinary EWS.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That is true, however we are usually good with saying "on record" or something of the like. Obviously there are storms we don't know exist, but the records and whatnot are based on the storms that do exist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to do this, it should be for clear, non-trivial records, such as strongest (wind), lowest pressure, deadliest, or farthest north most poleward. I don't think the farthest east, west, or equatorward records add anything of substance to these articles. Latest and earliest storms are less clear, especially if the systems fall outside a predesignated hurricane season, because one can argue that a Northern Hemisphere January or February storm is late, rather than early, based on the defined bounds of the "official" hurricane season. Any other records we should just wait for the TCR or some other reliable source, such as NCDC. If their statement of a record (like during Ike) appears incorrect, they should be contacted so they can fix the problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well said. If there was some record of great importance, generally the TCR would say it, so we wouldn't have to cite it to HURDAT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if the TCR doesn't say it, we would still be better to attribute such a record to somebody who meets RS, and who mentioned the record. Compass-rose records are marginally useless already, and HURDAT is a meh reference to use for them. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I am ok with posting records in articles as long as a reliable source that is not hundrat (i.e TCR, NCDC) as long as if it is not trivia. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is being sought here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears the discussion has run its course, and the general consensus is that we should not be using HURDAT to, for lack of a better, make up our own records. It mainly goes under the rationale that if it is truly an important record, someone else would've said it. This affects several articles whose existence is more or less based around the HURDAT records. Those include:

It also affects several templates (see further down this page). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Image standards and galleries

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

I also think that they should when cropped have a hight-width ratio similar to that of the trackmaps because of many of the small hurricane infoboxes look weird. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
If they are available, anyway. As for size of the images, if you do manipulate their size, I believe it is best to do it before the file is uploaded to wikipedia. One of the FAC reviews did not look kindly upon sizing the images using the image template. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, but I want a consensus on whether we should applicate this. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
But what I really meant is to applicate the fact in the future main images uses the 5000*5000px size and 250m/px zoom. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You see, some storms are larger than others. If we don't use the same sizing in images, readers will get confused. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If a MODIS image is available then it should be used, but I wonder what if none is available during the peak intensity of the storm. I know with some storms in the past we have had to use MODIS images that were taken once a storm began weakening or moved over land. Either way MODIS should definitely be the standard, with NNVL and GOES IR-Background as a secondary. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What I really meant was to have a sizing standard. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 00:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the 5000x5000 looks pretty good, saw your image on Bret. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please make this a standard? - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't care about images, but HS, I am fine with the standard. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

I think the calculations involved are routine, but citing it may be difficult. I don't think ACE adds that much value to the article to warrant the trouble. --Holderca1 talk 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Source there respective TCR's and a source how to calculate ACE. The rest falls under WP:C as they are fairly routine in this project. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what's any different between citing HURDAT and the TCR's (and in fact, in 1992's case, the TCR would be false). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
False? I don't think so. Anyhow, I'd prefer sourcing the TCR as my first choice, and HURDAT as the second. We should use HURDAT as least as possible in this project.YE Pacific Hurricane 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
1992 had Andrew's update, thus invalidating that preliminary report. Otherwise, what is the difference between using HURDAT and the TCR's? It's still synthesizing the information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Maue cough cough.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
ACE is used widely within meteorology circles to compare hurricane seasons, and as I recall, the agreement a year or so back was to remove ACE from individual storm articles, but to keep it in season articles. I feel quite strongly that as long as we cite a source for the data and a source for the formula, devising the ACE data does fall comfortably within policy. It's no additional strain on us to include the data, since we already have almost the entire HURDAT converted already! Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly valid to have the season total, but why should we include it for the individual storms? The metric isn't meant to be used for each storm. IDK, I feel it's similar to how we used to use HURDAT to cite records that no one else would mention (like a storm taking the longest to become a hurricane). I'm just looking for a valid reason and method to include the section since I have a current FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As long as we keep the overall season ACE value, I'm fine with eliminating the by-storm stats. Juliancolton (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, ACE would be a great addition to have in each season summary (which I've said before is an under-utilized section). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What sources are we using for ACE anyways? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Generally just HURDAT and the way to calculate the ACE. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I do agree that there's no use for ACE for individual storms. ACE is valuable in "season statistics". That source also addresses my concern that our ACE calculations aren't routine, therefore it's basically OR. I fully support using that HURDAT ACE source for and only for the season, not individual storms. Darren23Edits|Mail 03:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The only thing I think should be added is the season ACE should be in the season infobox to make it slightly easier to view it. Darren23Edits|Mail 00:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


To user Hurricanehink: (Hurricanehink you can delete this at anytime but please read) I just have a question about why you have to remove the ACE for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. I understand that removing it and putting a link is faster, but putting it on the page is easier and it has enough information for people to see the storms from most intense to least intense. I think for your link idea to work you'll have to do this for every season in the past and the future. From user STO12 —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

The main problem is that the way the ACE total is calculated is not backed by any reliable source. That is what makes this issue thorny: that ACE is a valid way of measuring storm heat transfer, but we don't really have anything to back our numbers beyond our word. Removing all ACE sections would be a considerable amount of work, but nothing beyond the realm of feasibility. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Furthermore, the ACE metric isn't meant to be used for a single storm (except in rare cases, such as for Ioke and Ivan, which I have seen). I am fine with removing the link for all older seasons, btw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus or not, does anyone have a valid reason to include ACE, be it in the current season or older seasons? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the criticism we've received for making the push to de-emphasize ACE, both on- and off-wiki, I'm starting to reconsider my initial comments in this thread. I maintain that ACE falls under standard calculations, and therefore citing HURDAT is not a breach of the OR policy. Obviously, we're unable to come to an in-project verdict on that particular issue, so if you or others think it's a good idea, I'm willing to bring it up at a broader level and see what people from other science and atmosphere projects think about it. If it's a useful and widely used statistic (which ACE appears to be, even for storm level statistics), we should try a little harder to find appropriate ways to include it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the only reason is that people are complaining recently is that we've had it in the project for a while. All along we've been trying to inflate its importance by including it as another metric. Given the sources we've seen (and we've seen plenty), ACE is simply not meant to be used for individual storms. Furthermore, whatever calculations we did were evidently not correct, as they were inconsistent with what the official values from HURDAT were. I hardly feel that ACE is a standard calculation, no more than figuring out baseball statistics on your own. Instead of thinking of reasons why not to remove it (as you argue it could potentially fall under routine calculation), why should it be included in the first place? It's not that convenient way of comparing storms (as intensities can widely differ), and it's mainly a metric to simply compare seasons. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even so sure it isn't used in academia to compare individual storms, though.
  • Alternative measures to assess hurricane destructive potential include accumulated cyclone energy [1]
  • The issue of trends in tropical cyclone intensity is more complicated, simply because there are many potential metrics of intensity (e.g., [...] maximum sustained wind speed, maximum wind gust, accumulated cyclone energy[...]) [2]
The second excerpt shows that scholars have set ACE on a level playing field with maximum sustained winds as a unit of identifying individual cyclone intensity. That's a pretty substantial indication that ACE is not just used on the season level. Juliancolton (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Good finds, for sure. However, I wouldn't say that is substantial indication that ACE is widely used for individual storms, merely that it could be if so desired. I would like to point out one of the top NHC search hits hits for ACE -
"Measuring total seasonal activity: The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index
The phrase "total seasonal activity" refers to the collective intensity and duration of Atlantic named storms and hurricanes occurring during a given season. The measure of total seasonal activity used by NOAA is called the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index. The ACE index is a wind energy index, defined as the sum of the squares of the maximum sustained surface wind speed (knots) measured every six hours for all named storms while they are at least tropical storm strength.
NOAA uses the ACE index, combined with the seasonal total number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes, to categorize North Atlantic hurricane seasons as being above normal, near normal, or below normal.
It strongly emphasizes that ACE is meant to be a seasonal value. The rest of the NOAA search (at least in each link I've checked) all say that ACE is meant to be overall activity. I can see now that some people think ACE could be used for individual storms, I see little evidence it is a common metric, one which we should include in every season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt that ACE was originally intended to measure TC activity at a climatic level (seasonal, regional, decadal, etc.), but I think it has in recent seasons become applied just as much to individual storms. Ryan Maue, an FSU climatologist, does publish ACE stats for individual storms in recent years, so I see no reason not to use his data where we can (from 2005 onward). According to him, "it is easily calc'd by taking the maximum wind speed reported by the NHC or JTWC every 6-hours and squaring it -- then add up and divide by 10^4." So, we have at least one expert on the subject who says it's an easy calculation. Also, as per this, "The ACE rating for an individual storm or for an entire season is in some ways a more illuminating measure than, say, simply the highest speed of a storm, or its lowest barometric pressure." Juliancolton (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. And, I should note, I did see a NOAA page that had recent storms' individual ACE. My biggest beef is with the sourcing, since simply citing HURDAT isn't good in my book (and remember we did have the discussion where we wouldn't include "HURDAT records" any more). I think I would be content with including ACE in recent seasons for where sources have each individual storm. I should note, however, that our totals differ from Ryan Maue (similar to how our overall totals differed from NOAA). Does that sound fair? Only including ACE for individual storms for when an independent, reliable source likewise indicates the individual ACE? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, my only problem with ACE is how it is sourced. If we had a reliable source indicating storm / season ACE totals, I wouldn't mind leaving it in the articles. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who's side I should take... I believe ACE is an important part of articles here, but there are no true reliable sources that follow the ACE from hurricane seasons. I know many people believe ACE is an important part of the season, but it's WP:OR to leave stuff in articles that's not sourced. IMO, the majority of visitors on WPTC care about the impacts of storms more than their ACE values, but if we don't have a reliable source to back up ACE, then we should remove them. If we do manage to find a reliable source for ACE, then there's no problem with having it in our articles. Rye998 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


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

Let's do FL class. I don't want my hard work being compared to someone else's joke project. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I was joking in the previous post. Just an update, it appears this was implemented. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Regular GA/FA article maintenance is important for the project

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

Actually, I don't think redirects are a huge problem. The bigger problem for our GA's and FA's are the broken links, which could certainly jeopardize either of them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. For news articles, I'm beginning to think we shouldn't use links after what happenned to the hurricane archive. As long as we reference them well enough, they shouldn't need them anyway. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, news articles do constitute a huge sum of information in our articles. I believe that once all news articles are cited by Google news, it shouldn't be a problem. Unlike thehurricanearchive, I don't think Google news is going anywhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
If we could just use journal articles for everything, we wouldn't have this problem… Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is true. However, information about some systems just never makes it to NHC and their storm reports, hence the dilemna. If it's not in the storm report, and doesn't get reported at the WMO meeting the following spring, it won't be in their season articles in the journals either. However, there's always a chance something storm-related could be in a non-meteorological journal article, which has been true for several storms within this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hink. Loads of articles I write have Google news articles and very few storms that I write have journals on them. Google news is not going anywhere. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

500 GA's

<insert slideshow>

We've been making some great progress over the past few years. Amazingly, the eastern Pacific basin is in the best shape, which has an incredible 59% of articles that are GA or better. To coordinate efforts, a task force was made for the Pacific hurricane articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Pacific hurricane task force.

The Atlantic is in almost as decent shape (46% are GA or better), which is impressive given it has seven times the number of articles. The Atlantic likewise has a task force - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Atlantic hurricane task force. Near-future project goals should include giving articles to the remainder of the seasons in the best track in both basins, as well as getting the seasons to good article status.

As great as those two basins are, the rest of the planet is much more average. The western Pacific has the most season article coverage, as well as the most articles outside of the NOAA basins. However, most season articles are stubs, and the basin is missing articles on many key storms. By contrast, the Australian basin has articles for the more important storms since the 70s, but there is still work to be done. The South Pacific basin is slowly developing, largely thanks to the efforts of User:Jason Rees. It boasts the only southern hemisphere good season articles, as well as the most good articles after the NOAA basins and the western Pacific. Perhaps most underdeveloped are the basins in the Indian Ocean. The North Indian has slowly grown since the project first formed. There are now 31 individual storm articles, as compared with 25 a year ago, and 16 two years ago. The Southwest Indian is much more anemic with only 16 individual storm articles.

We have to keep on working though. There is still plenty to do. Let's go for 1000! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people associated with Hurricane Katrina

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of people associated with Hurricane Katrina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List is impossible to complete, has arbitrary inclusion criteria, is a repository of loosely associated topics, and is probably better served with a category

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Template / buttons / books etc...

Right now there seems to be certain naming convention for articles. Let's take Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season / {{2005 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}}.

Main article is

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

With a timeline at

Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Statistics at

2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics

List of storms at

List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

And individual hurricane/storms as

The order of hurricane/storms can be determined from {{2005 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}}. From this, (and assuming the naming conventions are followed), it should be pretty easy to create books on hurricane seasons. However, certain articles are excluded from the buttons templates, like 2005 Hurricane Cindy tornado outbreak, or in the case of other seasons Meteorological history of Hurricane Gustav. So here's a few questions.

  • 1) Are there other "overview" articles than "YYYY Atlantic hurricane season" / "Timeline of the YYYY Atlantic hurriance season" / "YYYY Atlantic hurricane season statistics" and "List of storms in the YYYY Atlantic hurricane seasons"? Does these "overview" articles always follow these conventions?
  • 2) Would there be a way to add these other "overview" articles to the buttons templates?
  • 3) Would there be a way to add these outbreaks/meteorological history articles to the buttons templates?
  • 4) Would there be a way to add something similar to the "Book/Category/Portal/WikiProject/Commons" buttons templates of templates like {{Rihanna}} or {{Descent}}? Something like say

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As it so happens, the majority of seasons don't have any of the other articles. The most common "other" article is the timeline, which probably should be included in the button bar. As for those other "other" articles (the tornado outbreak and the meteorological history) they don't really belong in the season templates. Instead, they belong in the a sub-topic (like the Hurricane Dean sub-topic). IMO, the 2005 AHS statistics article probably shouldn't exist. If the main 2005 article was better formatted, there wouldn't be a need, since that is a bit of a content fork. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, though Hink is right in that 2005 has more subarticles than most seasons. Books on every season would probably help ensure greater consistency. Juliancolton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've made the BOTREQ. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Saffir-Simpson small}}

In that template, both SS and TS are mentioned, with the same speeds, and same colors? Isn't that redundant/confusing? Template guidelines says to not use SS.... so why is it mentionned? Should it be taken out? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, agreed, I think it should be removed. The SSHS is mainly supposed to be for hurricanes (it's a hurricane scale). TS and TD make sense to be included, but not SS or SD. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I took it out. Revert if it's the end of the world or something. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

NW Pacific typhoon tracks, 1951 through 2010

FWIW, in case it's useful, I thought I'd provide a link to this. I believe the info there derives from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Charley portal mistake now fixed

I don't know how often people access the portal, but for the anniversaries dated August 13, the TC portal stated that Charley hit near Tampa, Florida. Talk about revisionist history. It's been fixed, but it serves as a warning. We need to monitor the portal for these types of came up in one of the weather discussion chatrooms online today. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, thanks for the fix. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've systematically added what was pictured to each day. It turns out there were only a few other errors like that on the other dates. Who knew I'd ever get active on the portal. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Saffir-Simpson-NWP

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Saffir-Simpson-NWP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyclonic Loop?

The term Cyclonic Loop is used in a number of articles. Would this term be appropriate for a page of its own, or would there not be much more than the equivalent of a Wiktionary entry?Naraht (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We could make that a redirect to Tropical cyclone#movement and track, perhaps. There is nothing special about a loop meteorologically (it's just a set of conditions that caused the storm to steer a certain way). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Or we could add it to the glossary that we are developing.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be much in the movement and track that would apply, the first 3 are about the macro level issues (why do they go west between 10 & 30 degrees north, etc.) the 4th is about landfall and the 5th is about interaction between two storms. Glossary would be good. :)Naraht (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox hurricane change

See Template_talk:Infobox_hurricane#Code_cleanup for discussion. It's a discussion about simplifying the data. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

HURDAT updates

The Hurdat database has changed. Anyone onto it yet? Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The new tracks are in my to-do list. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added all the updated track maps. There were some storms with changes made only in the landfall database, which we don't use for track maps, so I skipped those. That said, here is a summary of changes made to track maps (and which consequently need to be done to articles):

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FA needing work

Hi guys! In April, I stumbled across Hurricane Juan, which is in desperate need of some cleanup. Multiple dead links leave a significant portion of the article unreferenced, there are a couple of citation needed tags, a bunch of choppy paragraphs, and it could just use an overall tidying. I left a note on the talk page, which received only the chirping of crickets in response. I am hoping to get a better response here - I would rather the article be tidied now, but if it isn't, it will need to go through a FAR, which, if it remains in the current state, will result in it losing its star. Hopefully those of you not riding out the effects of Irene can take a swing at it... Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Tito and I have done some work to it (fixing some broken links). I'll get to some more work on it later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

JMA (and NHC) depressions

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

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

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

You could extend that argument to tropical depressions in the Atlantic, because prior to 1987ish, they didn't have advisories either. And their numbering varies, even according to NHC in real-time and post-season reports. We should be consistent through the project on this issue. Tropical depressions are defined as a weak variety of tropical cyclone, and they can cause significant impact (due to flooding), so I think they should be covered in the season articles, and should only sparingly have their own articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I do feel as though the JMA ones are different, since there is no record of that all. And, I don't particularly feel we should include the Atlantic ones, if they weren't known to the public and didn't have a number. For the Atlantic, including all of them would make the season article rather long, and would give undue focus to the weakest storms. Look at the 1979 AHS - David and Frederic are totally overshadowed by the sheer number of depressions, which shouldn't be the case since there are only nine tropical storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How NHC covered it back then was by talking about tropical depressions in their tropical weather outlooks, so it's not like people didn't know they were there. The public numbering just wasn't known to the public until around 1980. Older newspaper clippings showed that the public would have been aware of their existence. The problem is, unless we have someone in the project from Japan, we really don't know if the public is aware of the tropical depressions they mention in their high seas forecast. It's not like we're searching through Japanese newspaper articles for them. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Keeping the focus on the WPac (one issue at a time), the only mention of most depressions is in a single line. An example from last year would be "TROPICAL DEPRESSION 1006 HPA AT 20N 120E EAST 10 KT." That doesn't show any indication of intent to warn the public of anything. There are no specifics on the system and only a general location, a specific point rounded to a 90 square mile area, is given. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If this is still located in their high seas forecast, like it was in the early 1990s, then yes, it is placed there to primarily warn mariners of the threat. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Remember there are three kinds of TDs in JMA's practice:
1. No MSW, 1-deg position, no forecast, no RSMC products.
2. 30 kt, 0.1-deg position, no forecast, no RSMC products.
3. 30 kt becoming TS in 24 h, 0.1-deg position, 24-h forecast, RSMC products initiated. HkCaGu (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Sure, why not. If NHC considers them tropical depressions, then they are tropical cyclones and should be in the annual articles. We'd just treat them like we have in the Western Pacific Typhoon articles for systems that Hong Kong acknowledged, and JTWC and JMA may not have. Increasingly, the Atlantic articles in the 1970s and 1980s are utilizing names such as "Early June Tropical Depression" for unnumbered tropical depressions, which could be used in older articles as well. If it is agreed that each system does not merit its own section, we could have one section which just talks about the tropical depressions. Whichever way the project wants to go, we should figure it out sooner rather than later. With people improving the season articles, it will just make that much more work to comply with a new project standard later into the future. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Big heads up. NHC added the non-developmental database into their ATCF system in February, which means that the old tracks which were transcribed from graph paper to digital format 3-4 years ago are now part of the official database. A woohoo and a d'oh are both in order because of this addition. However, other than some formatting issues during the digitization, a formal reanalysis has not been completed for these systems, as far as far as I can tell. Nor do I remember seeing formal TD designations in that file, which now means that there are two ways to number TDs from 1981-1987 (real-time and ATCF renumbering), three different ways to number depressions between 1972 and 1987 (real-time numbering, after-the-fact numbering the following year, and ATCF numbering which are all different), and four ways to number them between 1967 and 1971 (real-time numbering which covers both the Atlantic and EPac, Atlantic-only numbering, after-the-fact numbering the following year, and ATCF numbering). The big omission (whether on purpose or by accident) was TD 9 of 1977, which impacted NC. This also means that the mainly extratropical Late November 1984 nor'easter is there as tropical for its whole track. Oy. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Now that they're in ATCF, they are officially considered TDs, regardless of the different criteria used back then. To consider them otherwise would be original research, and a wikipedia no-no. Their re-evaluation will have to wait until the hurricane re-analysis makes it to 1989, which will be quite a while. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, then that works fine! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

There isn't really. I still question whether the JMA depressions are actually tropical cyclones. Notice, they don't appear in any best track, and they aren't numbered or named. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is to limit the scope to those named/numbered by JMA, numbered by JTWC, and named by PAGASA. If the depression doesn't qualify in one of the three, leave it off. Since JMA doesn't even number what they call depressions, who's to say we haven't missed any, especially when working on prior season's articles. --Holderca1 talk 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In DE:WP we figured out, thanks to a helpful Wikipedian capable of Japanese, that the JMA is numbering any system with more than 34 kt, f.ex. (I hope I didn't copied and pasted wrongly) 台風第1号 meaning Taifū 1/ichi-gō or Typhoon Nr. 1 [of 2011/Heisei 23]. And that numbering is identical to what our articles call international number except for formatting the other way around, 1101. (The whole discussion ist at de:Diskussion:Pazifische Taifunsaison 2011) However, within Japan, they use nettai teikiatsu for tropical depressions and taifū for all stronger (≥ 17m/s/34 kt/Beaufort 8) systems; tropical and severe tropical storms are used for RSMC purposes only. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That further establishes what I believe, how they don't number depressions or even really care about them beyond saying where they are. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll try to ask my contact whether the document mentioned in the DE:WP discussion does contain any regulations about the depressions, but I don't know how fast I can report, since tomorrow I'll have a very busy day and Friday I won't have Internet access. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you think? JMA depressions do not appear in the best track, aren't numbered, and aren't warned. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, some JMA depressions are numbered and warned while some aren't. The requirement is near gale force wind near centre. Warnings are given in WWJP25 RJTD while Tropical Cyclone numbers are given in TCNA20/21 RJTD. For systems eventually becoming TS, the number can be confirmed in best track database as well. My opinion is that only those with 30kt wind should be included. (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bibcode bot

Does anyone support/objects to Bibcode Bot running on meteorology/hurricane-related articles? It would add arXiv preprints, bibcodes, and dois to citation templates. It wouldn't really affect many "pure" hurricane articles, but anything citing something like Monthly Weather Review or Journal of Atmospheric Sciences would probably get those identifiers added.

For those who don't know, bibcodes are links to the NASA Astrophysics Data System, which gives you plenty of information about the article (such as who cites the article, related articles, author's publication history, etc...), and very often contains free digital versions of them (and if not, it very often contains links to the official online version). ArXiv contains free preprints of articles, and DOIs are the official link to articles themselves. This is not really controversial, but I'd like explicit consensus on this before doing so. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it could hurt. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah sure go ahead. Juliancolton (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I ran it yesterday, and it caught quite a few things. Might to a run later in the week to see if there's some journals it missed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed massive page move

A discussion is currently being held at Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995)#Requested move regarding a proposed massive page move to remove all year numbers in the titles of storm names that have only been used once so far (even though those names have not been retired yet). Your input would greatly be appreciated. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A similar requested move discussion has also been posted on Talk:Typhoon Keith (1997)#Requested move to rename Typhoon Keith (1997) to just Typhoon Keith. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Just a head's up, the project has two featured article candidates up now, and both are rather important.

The first – Hurricane Igor – is nominated by User:Cyclonebiskit. Igor was a retired storm as well as the costliest hurricane in Newfoundland history. (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Igor/archive1).

The other – 1991 Perfect Storm – is co-nominated by myself and User:Juliancolton. The article is part of the ongoing effort to get 1991 Atlantic hurricane season to featured topic status (after the season article got featured earlier this month). The Perfect Storm has inspired a film and book of the same name, and is one of the more famous nor'easters in New England. (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Perfect Storm/archive1).

Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


I just noticed something while talking on IRC. Right now, we have a variety of templates that are, IMO, inadequately sourced. For simple explanation, they are the [something]est storms in a certain basin. Some of them have sources for each individual storm, but there are two problems. First, as with Template:Deadliest Pacific hurricanes, we don't know what the accurate totals are. As much as we love to have an exact damage or death toll, it simply doesn't exist for some storms. There isn't always a "best source" we can use to justify including a certain number. Therefore, depending on the source used, the deadliest Pacific hurricane could either be the 1959 Mexican hurricane or Hurricane Paul.

This brings me to the second problem. What if there was a deadlier storm that we don't know of? In the early days of the project, the template was missing Hurricane Tara (1961), simply because we didn't know how deadly it was.

IMO, we should avoid having those templates in the first place, where we don't have a source for the entire list. That includes Deadliest Pacific hurricanes (which is actually entirely unsourced), Costliest Cuban, and Deadliest Atlantic (although we could use the list that the NHC provided), perhaps others. Additionally, Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes might be problematic as well, given that it's using the entire HURDAT database (and we agreed that we shouldn't use the entire HURDAT database to prove a record, we should use someone else who says such record).

Thoughts? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we could use "The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996" Fact sheet on the deadliest hurricanes, but it hasn't been updated during the last 15 years and im fairly sure that Katrina, Mitch or Stan should be on there.Jason Rees (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Only Mitch, actually (for the template), and we have proof via the TCR that Mitch is the 2nd deadliest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further thoughts on this? I really don't think we should be having those templates without a source that indicates the order. Simply saying something like "deadliest known" wouldn't suffice, since if I didn't know about the 1959 Mexican hurricane, I wouldn't include that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could convert some to sortable tables and remove the rank.Jason Rees (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But what would be the criteria for each of them then? I could see a template for, say, Atlantic hurricanes killing over 1,000 people, or over $10 billion in damage, but I don't think that would work for how we currently have the templates. They're mid-article fillers, generally, and seeing as some can't be sourced (like Costliest Cuban), I'm not really sure what the best thing to do would be. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with JR. Removing the rank and converting them to templates addresses the main issue IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't though, unless we have some sort of standardized qualifier (such as Pacific hurricanes that killed over 100 people). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I think we should have some sort of qualifier.YE Pacific Hurricane

Season infoboxes - what to count?

What is supposed to enter into the storm numbers? Official data or based on JTWC data? I was wondering in 2010–11 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season where one of the depressions was classified as a tropical storm by the JTWC while Météo France named only three storms. However the infobox at this moment counts four tropical storms. So what's the project's guideline. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember MFR does not name depressions, and they monitored 4 storms last season with Madagascar refusing to name STD 9. Anyway getting back to the point in hand, we normally would put it down as official and unofficial in the infobox but i dont see why we dont do it like a sports score RSMC: 0 JTWC: 0.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should include JTWC in the infobox, since they're not an official agency. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
For SHEM thats fine, but for WPAC (pre 00) its not as you are well aware.Jason Rees (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Let's just bite bullet and treat JMA like the official agency it is. The JTWC data certainly can and should be used in tandem with the JMA, but the JMA should be the forefront. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Because with the WMO TC approval the JTWC was the naming agency pre 00.Jason Rees (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But we can't keep focusing on how things were when the season was active. That's why we use HURDAT for official Atlantic data, and not the monthly weather review. It's fine to use the operational data, particularly if it hasn't been changed much, but we should be using whatever is the current official data. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
We wouldn't have that discussion over and over again if the JMA would provide a better service. Finding a sourcing properly the seasons' reports is quite tricky. And yet it contains the storms and typhoons only. However, credits to Jason, I operationally (in the sense of: the german SWI basin article is almost entirely operated by me alone) didn't catch the issue with the STD9 and was wondering because a new user did change the number, seemingly according to the english article. But so far in german WP we counted only the named storms and for consistence I modified the german WP's hurricane seasons infobox a couple of days ago, for to reflect the numbers of named storms. But I realized now that that was a wrong move, considering that naming was invented at 1950 at the earliest. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the JMA only including TS's and Typhoons, that would be good justification to remove the JMA depressions, as I have been advocating for years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

List of retired AUS and SPAC TC names

Hi guys - I was wondering if it wouldnt be better if the list of retired Australian cyclone names and list of South Pacific tropical cyclone names would be better as one list since several of the systems were retired for effects on the other basin. (eg: Ului 10, Rewa 93, Eric and Nigel 84-85). Thoughts?Jason Rees (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn. On one hand, I think Cyclone Yasi is a great of what you're describing, how the storm from one list is from one basin but severely impacts the other. On the other hand, it might complicate things, as well as make the singular list rather long. After thinking about this for a while (and changing my mind several times), I think they should stay separate, but with some explanation. Using Yasi as an example (I'm assuming it'll be retired), it should get a little * or something in the SPAC retired cyclone article, or something to indicate its primary impact was out of the basin, and then maybe a paragraph should be devoted to those sorts of storms in the AUS article. After all, it is only the list of retired names from the South Pacific basin, so Yasi is perfectly legitimate to be there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
For a while I am wondering about the Aus/SPac complex and which diplomatic background is in this. See, there is the the RSMC Nadi. Despite of being trained by the NOAA and despite some equipment they have from the US and despite of CPHC Honolulu being one of the backup sites in case Nadi would be inoperative as well many many stuff is Aussie stuff. That said, look at the track maps in the advisories, they even are the same on Méteo-France's New Caledonia site, and when there's the tropical cyclone committee's conference the report basically is a work written by the BoM and not by the FMS. Heck, even Jakarta TCWC is using partly BoM's cyclone pages web design, especial the track maps and the warnings. I didn't look up wether there are significant differences between La Nina or El Nino years, but appearantly almost every coral sea cyclone comes from or goes to SPac. The 165° E line is nothing more than an arbitrary line, like the 140° W meridian between NHC Miama and CPHC (another irrational thing – why not give the Eastern Pacific to Honolulu rr close the CPHC totally).
However, as Hurricanehink said, it's about retiring names from the basin's lists. It doesn't really matter (concerning that list) why a storm was retired and what the storm did. Yasi, if retired, was an SPac name. Dot. So it is a matter of the SPac' list. Don't combine the lists. Notwithstanding explaining why a storm was retred, when it was retired due to reasons outside the basin. IMO that's what footnotes are for. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Current storm information section

Isn't this section/paragraph kind of/sort-of redundant to the infobox used for active storms? Basically, the only info the infobox doesn't have is storm size, but if people have issue with that, they can add it to the infobox. (I'm not talking about warnings, either. Just that paragraph) Why do we have this section anyway? Darren23Edits|Mail 15:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think we should take the opposite approach and get rid of the template. Then, we'd use the hurricane infobox to indicate information that people may really want to know (when it formed, deaths to date, etc.). That's how the WPAC does it, and it seems to work fine. I agree we have a redundancy issue. I think it comes down to our responsibility as an encyclopedia (and not a news agency). We're not supposed to be giving out warnings and whatnot, so I don't think we need the template at the top of the article. I think people would freak if we didn't have it at all, so I'm happy with giving it a section in prose. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think people would also be confused if we didn't have the current infobox (thinking its the current data, etc etc). And because of WP:NOTNEWS, I think we shouldn't have it in prose, since the one in prose is too newsy, unlike the infobox. I'm fine with the warnings being removed, but I think it would better to get rid of the paragraph.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren23 (talkcontribs)
I don't think they'd get that confused, particularly if it says the storm is "still active". It's more encyclopediac to indicate where the storm is in history, despite still being active. We should keep the warnings, since we indicate that anyway when the storm is over where the warnings were. As for having it in prose, meh, it's basically a copy of the public advisory. It depends what other articles do... but come to think of it, very few disasters last this long to even warrant having that discussion. I think we should have the information as a sub-section at the end of the meteorological history, since that's what it really is, what the storm is doing at that moment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea, if anything we should get rid of the infobox not the paragraph. I agree that readers will not be confused, so I don't think they are any major issues with this.YE Pacific Hurricane 14:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I agree with Darren23...It is kind of redundant to have that infobox and then have that Current Information section. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Jus' do it. HurricaneFan25 13:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would much more appreciate that all those who very much like to discuss what readers expect and what not and wether this falls within the scop of the project or not just would stop those discussions and do more productive work with the articles, as f. ex. uploading the forecast maps for Hilary, as to name one instance, where I did the uploads for more than two days all alone. However, I am also opposing your talking above. Since the current storm infobox was invented for the WPac the user's activities at least within the WPac basin got better. It's not good but it is better than it was last year. But if you want to kill the interest of editors in those articles, certainly it doesn't matter. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't think whether there is an infobox or not at the top would make editors more interested in editing the article. There'd still be the current storms section at the bottom. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Still active"

I notice whenever that a tropical cyclone is active, the table at the bottom of the page says "still active". I feel the usage of the word "still" sounds strange—it makes me think like "still active" — but the Hilary article uses "currently active," which IMO sounds better than "still active". Thoughts? HurricaneFan25 16:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "still active" to be changed to "currently active". It sounds more encyclopedic IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You can be bold and fix it if you want :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


After having a argument with a user on IRC last night and here about notability, it appears that people are having issues with our unspoken guideline. While this matter has gotten off and on over the years, it should be an issue we need to solve some day, and eventually work around it. I propose for all new storm articles to must had done one of these things:some indication of moderate to severe damage/flooding, direct deaths, or be a meteorological anomaly. For articles that exist that fail this criteria, I think the quality of an article comes into play. With that said, this is not set in stone and is still subject to some interpretation (not as much as are unspoken guideline though). Feel free to ignore any of these guideline if it improves or maintains WP. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Any thoughts? Also, please try to avoid being dramatic. Thank you. If this discussion turns into an argument, I suggest it to stop. YE Pacific Hurricane

I have two major qualms, which has been the problem all along. First, what is a meteorological anomaly? Isidore 90 did form further south than any other storm, but it wasn't deemed notable enough for an article. Second, what do you mean by direct deaths? Surely, a storm killing three people back in 1950, but doing nothing else and having little info would not warrant an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There has, and always will be, arguments over what is notable and what is not. Obviously, because of this, you'll just have to be bold, and everybody will talk about it when that time comes. But in my opinion, this problem will never be fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hink, a meteorological anomaly is a Cat 5 in every basin but the WPAC (i.e Hurricane Guillermo (1997), in addition, storm that form far outside hurricane season (i.e. Hurricane Ekeka, or does something unique (for example Hurricane Fausto (2002) is notable for its regeneration north of Hawaii). In the case of Isidore, the record was source by HURDAT, and when we agreed to get rid of it, it was no longer a meteorological anomaly. Your second qualm is an information issue, not a notability issue. Direct deaths excludes deaths from precursors and remnant lows as well as deaths from traffic accidents and lighting strikes. TA13, from what I read in talk page archives, they were very few to no notability debates form late 2006 to mid-2008. It was not till Hurricane Hernan (2008) and Tropical Storm Erick (2007) were created when classic arguments such as this began. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but notability isn't inherent. I, for one, don't think Hurricane Patsy (1959) should have an article due to how short it is and lack of independent verifiable data backing up its impotance. I likewise question Ekeka and Fausto's claims for notability, but that's another story. As for Isidore, it is either an anomaly or not. That's where we had the discussion months ago that records (and notability by extent) have to be backed up by non-RSMC sources. I don't know how the deaths is a notability issue, as the same thing could happen nowadays (a storm killing five in Japan but having little info/notability).
Regarding TA13, I do believe I have a solution to a problem that can be fixed. Currently, we treat storm and season articles as separate entities, with not much similarity. Currently, it seems like the mindset is that the season is the combination of all of the storms. However, I propose we start treating the storm articles as sub-articles of the season. Treat the season as the main entity (since broad scale conditions like La Nina and MJO affect the season, which in turns affects the number of storms). When the section in the season article becomes too long (three paragraphs), then it would be time for a sub-article. I'll say it a different way to emphasize my idea. If a storm can't be summarized in three paragraphs of information, then there shouldn't be an article. That would solve the issue of the older storms (which has always been my rebuttal to any be-all-end-all proposal), of fish storms (which would mean that it would have to be a long-lasting fish storm in order to have a good amount of info), and of overall notability (if a storm had one claim to notability but there was little overall information, say, Patsy). If a season article is incomplete or has a short section for a particular storm, but a user knows there is a lot more information out there, they can still do the usual route of making an article, as I did with Hurricane Ella (1970) (which is the newest article on a named Atlantic tropical cyclone).
To summarize, we should start treating storm articles as sub-articles of the season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Partially agreed, but I don't think all storms that have three paragraphs of info should get an article. This is a good example of what I am talking about. On the other hand, they are a few storms that I think could get articles that don't have two paragraphs of info in the season article. For these reasons, I'd prefer if we measured on wheather a storm article is necessary by the number of words the season article has. However, I don't think we should treat them as a subpage of the season article. The season article is for all the storms, the storm article is for just one. Frankly, they are under separate task forces. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying that if it can be summarized to three paragraphs or less, it should not have an article. Max is perfectly in line. Why do you not think they should be considered sub-articles? If the season had widespread unfavorable conditions (such as persistent upper-level lows, cooler water temperatures, an unusual trough/ridge), that links all of the storms together. There has even been outside commentary how the low-notability storms that were put on FAC in the past were basically sub-articles. In the grand scheme of things, it'd only be a minor change, which we could apply to the main WPTC page. It'd just reflect a different approach, how storms are the subset of the seasons (not that seasons are merely the list of storms). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)