The {{hurricane}} now holds the article quality class. We can (and should) embed other "meta-data" about articles into this template! But what is needed to be known for each article? Maybe we should start with a date on which the quality class was last visited and who assigned it, like {{hurricane|class=Start|date=January 2006}}. Or maybe that's not ambitious enough, and we should embed a whole set of explanation text: {{hurricane|class=Start|reason=This article documents a current event and should be re-assessed when the event is over.}}. Or maybe both, of course. Jdorje04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have gone through the 2004 and 2005 timeline articles, changing them to reflect TCRs instead of advisories. Should every single thing in the timelines be ref'd to the TCRs? And the 2005 graphical timeline, should we copy that across to the other seasons too? Nilfanion13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded the stub article on U.S. Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Climatology, and expanded its scope to one that is worldwide, god help me. Rainfall has never been covered well in tropical cyclone season/individual storm summaries...the U.S. data was mined from NCDC personally. Many "wikilinks" have been added to associated storm/season articles, and I added some typhoon pictures that don't appear to be on here from the western Pacific (some missing from 2002-2004!) Inline links have been added...not sure how to do the endnote thing quite yet. I'm slowly going back through the Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Articles done by Gary Padgett since 1997 and adding related rainfall information. Does anyone know if an archive of the old Weekly Tropical Cyclone Summaries by Jack Beven (and me as guest author in Jan-Feb 1994) from 1992-1997 still exists on the web, or in anyone's inbox? User Talk:thegreatdr21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, I didn't think about this until now. If any of you all live in places that occasional get rainfall from tropical cyclones or their remnants, and you have a rain gage, send along your observations to me on my talk page along with nearest town name and your personal latitude and longitude (I think you can still find that out for free on geocode). Thegreatdr19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Version 0.5, the test run for WP:1.0, is getting started, and we need a few reviewers for the nominations page. As our WikiProject has been the one that has assessed the most articles, we have the most experience, so we should help them out.</spam> :)
If they aren’t looking to add many other smaller articles, we should find a way to create a static version of Tropical cyclone with short explanations of the above included, and have that be the 0.5-included article. Runningonbrains19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Western Pacific data source issues
Our coverage of the NW Pacific is based primarily on data from the JTWC. I'm not sure of the precise dates things happened (I know the RSMC got established some time ago, but the JTWC retained naming responsibility until more recently), but currently RSMC Tokyo does have full responsibility for everything in this basin. However, we still use the JTWC data as if it was the official data. This causes problems as the Philippines uses JTWC data for their status. RSMC Tokyo uses the following categorizations: 35-45 TS, 50-60 Severe TS, 65+ Typhoon (NO super typhoon) in 10-minute speeds. Look at the JTWC site's disclaimer: "JTWC products on this website are intended for use by U.S. government agencies. Please consult your national meteorological agency or the appropriate World Meteorological Organization Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for tropical cyclone products pertinent to your country, region and/or local area."
Wikipedia is NOT a US government agency, so we should be using the relevant RSMC data. Incidentally that causes many problems, for example 2004's Chaba was 879mbar / 155 (1 min) kts according to JTWC (and therefore Wikipedia) but 910 hPa / 110 (10 min) kts according to RSMC Tokyo. In the "distant" past the JTWC data is the official data (unless the RSMC retroactively got responsibility - I'm not sure). However, the JTWC now has as much responsibility for storms in the NW Pacific as it does for those near Australia, merely that of protecting the US Navy. What exactly should we do?--Nilfanion09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is that I am really sorry. I used the Joint Typhoon Warning Center because that appeared to be what was used, and then I personally did the WPAC from 1958 to 2003 using the JTWC. I don't know what to do. Switching would be a huge pain, yet it sounds like it is a fairly big issue. Hurricanehink21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd say to keep using the JTWC data until we can find the relevant RSMC Tokyo info, and gradually move it. Titoxd(?!? - help us)22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That works... time consuming but doable. One problem though, the active season. The current season has 2 TS's listed — from JTWC data. Tokyo only says one...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Pacific typhoon seasons have always listed all identified storms (hence Philippine-named INVESTs are also noted). NSLE(T+C) at 00:48 UTC (2006-05-10)
This is why I used the Gary Padgett Monthly Summaries for the storms I've added in 2003 and 2004...they include information from all available sources. JTWC just hasn't been the authority, since at least 1999. Thegreatdr18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
For ACTIVE storms - Have a look at User:NSLE/Sandbox - a modified version of {{HurricaneActive}}, using User:NSLE/Sandbox/Hurricane status in part, which is a modified version of {{hurricane status}}. Also, see it in use at User:NSLE/Sandbox/Typhoon test. Thoughts? The "current storm information" could also give info from both the JTWC and the local RMSC, explaining the differences in readings. I've also made pressure optional, as the JTWC does not give pressure readings, but the JMA does, so for storms recognised by PAGASA/JTWC but not JMA it wouldn't be a problem.
I'm sure the same could be done for past storms - in fact I believe {{infobox hurricane}} already allows that, showing more than one windspeed. The article could, again, reflect the differences in forecasting, and still talk about both forecasts...
NSLE(T+C) at 01:53 UTC (2006-05-10)
The only issue with this concept is the JMA and the JTWC give contradictory best-track data; like my example with 2004's Chaba. Which numbers should the article use? The JMA data says Chaba was a weaker storm than the JTWC, to list both would be confusing at the very least. Also what do we do with storms like 2005's Tropical storm 25W? The JTWC called it a TS but the JMA did not. Therefore I think it shouldn't count to the seasons activity in the infobox; but how to label the section appropriately (PAGASA named it)?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What about right now? Chanchu-Caloy is a typhoon according to the JTWC but a tropical storm according to the RSMC. Should the title be changed to Typhoon? —Cuiviénen(talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May2006 @ 22:33 UTC
Same problem as I was referring to above - odds are the storm will be upgraded to a typhoon by the RSMC soon anyway, so this is a moot point in the long term. But we do have a naming problem with these storms; I think we have to call them whatever Tokyo calls them, perhaps we should bracket the full PAGASA names when in the Philippine area?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose this suggestion. We've always listed it to the strongest it's been, and in the timeline note the differences between JTWC and JMA (see the 2005 Pacific typhoon season article's timeline). I'd still list it as "Typhoon Chanchu (Caloy)". NSLE(T+C) at 04:24 UTC (2006-05-11)
The problem with leaving as is, is illustrated by "Tropical Storm 01W (Basyang)". The RSMC does not consider it a TS, so officially it isn't — which means that title is misleading and the current activity of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season at this time is 1 storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Article formatting
Just curious, do you think we should send a message to all tropical cyclone users about the proper formatting for an article? If we explain clearly how to better existing articles, maybe people would know more of what to do. Simply having it on the Wikiproject page might not have enough of an audience. I was thinking something like this. Some things might be debatable, like the dissipation box on the infobox, so feel free to tweak it.
Dear Tropical cyclone editor,
As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.
Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexable, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.
Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.
Should we send something like this to all of the TC editors? It appears not everyone knows the proper formatting, and a reminder couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
One thing, though: For more impacting hurricanes, [the lead section] should be 3 [paragraphs] or more. I'm not sure that having more than three paragraphs in any lead section is a good idea. What do others think? Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
True. I wasn't really thinking, but four paragraphs would be a little much. I made the change. Also, something that should be discussed is the area of impact. I was thinking that it would be every country it effected, unless it effected multiple parts of the country. This could allow for U.S. states, Mexican provinces, and Canadian provinces to still be separate. What if, for example, a hurricane hits Nova Scotia then Newfoundland? Or a hurricane hit the Yucatan Peninsula then the Mexican mainland? This could allow for some more leeway. Otherwise, what are some items that should be discussed? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would be all right, IMO, unless the information for a particular country is detailed enough for us to write about several provinces for that country. Mexican states, U.S. states and Canadian provinces should be merged back to the country if there's not enough info to merit them being separated, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us)02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How Impact is split up should depend on how much information there really is. If there is sufficient information to split off US/Mexican states or Canadian provinces from the country - and the other regions within that country are not very short, split them off. An example of how I see this should work is on Hurricane Ivan, there is enough info for Florida, there really should be enough for Alabama, but the other states should be merged together - either directly to "rest of United States" or to regional areas like "Mid-Atlantic States" or "New England". Also, if a number of Caribbean islands are affected and there is only minor impact in a number of them an amalgamated country section is justified. Preparations and aftermath should follow the same rules as impact, but they should generally be shorter and hence less subsections should be used.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the "area of impact" is the entire area covered and affected by the storm from the moment it becomes a tropical depression to the moment it dissipates (if notable, it can also include major effects felt at the remnant/in-between tropical low or extratropical stage). For large states - particularly Florida and Texas - if only part of the state was affected (i.e. the Florida Panhandle, South Texas), that should be written. (That is rare with other states except when it brushes by - Katrina, for instance, completely covered Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, among other states). If a storm completely covers a large region (i.e. if it follows the East Coast or follows the Appalachians and remains notable along its entire track), a large-scale description should be written. The order should always be from the first area affected to the last area affected. CrazyC8305:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. I was talking about the area of impact in the infobox. Sorry, was pretty tired when I wrote that. Now that you brought the impact section into the mix, should the area of impact section simply be every sub section in the impact section? Otherwise, completely agreed about the impact section. Only split them up if there's enough info. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, although we can combine areas in the Impact section if they are related (i.e. South Florida and Cuba with Hurricane Rita, "Inland" for general inland effects of future storms). Avoid combining areas in the infobox unless it affects most or all of the areas in those regions. CrazyC8317:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if Rita with S FL/Cuba and FL panhandle sections is sensible - respecting political boundaries and using FL and Cuba would make more sense, though Cuba needs more info. "Inland States" is a really sensible idea for the US landfalls, perhaps with other countries have a coastal and inland impact split? The message is fine, it will get the articles to the assessment page as probable A-class and we can fine tune when it gets there. I would just emphasise that the storm history should not have subsections as a rule (it really should not be long enough for that).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
But if there isn't a lot of information in Cuba, but still enough to have mention, there'd be no point to have the split sections. Not a lot of storms have a lot of inland impact, but if there is a lot, Inland States is a good idea, unless it can be split up like Arlene. Completely agreed with the storm history. Ivan might be a rare example of a longer than usual storm history, but there's no need for subsections in the storm history. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For the purposes of this message the details for impact are adequate, most editors have a good feel for how to do it right I think; and if they don't it will be OK when it becomes good enough to go to the assessment page. Let's not worry too much here, but deal with them on the relevant pages to that article. Adding a comment saying "subsections in storm history are bad" in the message will address all serious problems- send it out then. Ivan's history is a bit too long but Wilma's is ridiculous, if the message can discourage that format its a good thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I made a mention about how excessive storm histories are bad. You're right. Most people will only follow this as a guide line. Some storms wouldn't work with this format. I'll put it into a template, if that's alright. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Storm history needs to cover the meteorological part of the storm, not the damage it caused. Subsections make sense to separate key points of the history. CrazyC8303:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
True, the impact section has the damage it caused, but is there really a need to have a storm history that is over 5 paragraphs? Subsections, while somewhat organizing, are not needed. We need to summarize the information, not give it all in one big heap. That is what external links are for, to give more excessive detail that is pointless in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to User:E. Brown ?, because had made no edits since April 2006 nor responded to our recent article creations. And theres nothing on his user page of the reasoning of absence (wikibreak, blocked, banned, quit?). Storm0517:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I sometimes wish I could go into hibernation during the winter then wake back up for hurricane season...then I remember that I'd be missing the cold and the snow and then the spring storm season...and figure it best that I just stay up...Dr Denim23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Someone please archive a lot of this article. I tried, but I'm not sure what should stay and what should go. When the article size is at a good size, feel free to delete this. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean this talkpage? I've just archived 50 sections. I checked what has been dead for about a month and archived it. If anyone wants to bring up an archived discussion, simply copy and paste it here. -- RattleMan01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. The See Also section has a certain style to it, and this breaks that style. I think simply listing the cyclone artlicles in the See Also section would be better. TimL01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
See reasoning here, and please express your views there too. NSLE(T+C) at 02:45 UTC (2006-05-28)
camille
I provided camille a little love. I'll take alook at the recommendations from the peer review and apply them soon, esp the {{Cite web}} template}}, and more copyediting as needed, though the rest of the article doesn't look like it needs much. TimL01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This is my fault. I was the one that copied and pasted. But I commented out most of it because I have been rewriting the paragraphs one by one. When I have rewritten the paragraph, I let it be seen without having to press the edit button. I thought it was ok if the original work was not seen, so I'd show it when it wasn't exactly the same. Isn't that fine. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk)00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The first 4 or 5 paragraphs were rewritten to some degree. I was hoping someone could do a more noticable rewrite, as I don't have the best writing skills. So I think the first 4 of 5 paragraphs can be restored. Right? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk)00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm glad to help here though. This is a great source for the Aftermath sectrion but need not be the only source. We have a good number of sources to draw from in the article. I'll work on an aftermath rough draft over the next couple of days based on these sources. TimL00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Newsletter?
A couple of us have been talking about a newsletter, and I for one think it is a good idea. It would be a good way to talk to all TC members each month, especially if some of them don't come here. I thought of a few things to put in.
Member of the month- Let's face it, a lot of us do some hard work here, and no one is recognized at all. It's time for your hard work to be shown around a bit.
Article statistics- Something like this could be updated each month. The following is for storm articles only.
General todo- Similar to what's on the Portal page, basically a list of articles that need to be created, expanded, etc.
FA Wishlist- Here is where we put storms that we want to be FA, but aren't good enough now. Camille and Andrew come to mind for me.
Storm of the month- This section could be a section for a storm in the previous month that we could vote on. If there were a June newsletter, the storm of the month could be Chanchu, which is where the storm would be described
New Articles- This section could be all articles made in the previous month. However, looking at the article stats, there might be too many (May saw 20 more storms). Maybe this could be the best new article.
Would fully support such an initiative. We could add special mentions like FAs, or Featured Lists, Pictures, DYK mentions etc. NSLE(T+C) at 00:07 UTC (2006-05-31)
Cool. Yea, we could have a news section covering the FAs and FLs. The picture could be the same featured pic for the Portal. The question is, should we try and get it done for June 1, or wait until July to release it? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't rush it Hink, I don't think June 1 is possible. If we take our time and make it ready for July we be able to make a good one after all.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't make one for June. We can certainly try, and if we can't make it, we can use the content for July's (changing the relevantbits, of course)... NSLE(T+C) at 00:32 UTC (2006-05-31)
Actually yeah, we can in June sometime, I just think June 1 would be a bit too soon. After all figure out all we want first don't we?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of making it the 1st of every month, perhaps we can make a newsletter release the 1st Saturday, or Sunday, etc of every month. We should also probably start discussing what to put in June's, if we intend to do one for June. NSLE(T+C) at 00:49 UTC (2006-05-31)
Well, we can mention several things:
A list of all the articles featured to date
A list of current candidates for FA/FL/FP status, as well as articles in PR
Another question is who to deliver it to. I say, for the first one we deliver it to everyone, with a note to please add their name to an exempt-list if they don't wished to be spamed in future. NSLE(T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-05-31)
Well, filling in the sections, I nominate Jdorje as the member of the month, seeing as he created this mess :) Article stats are fine where they are. The article that should be created is Subtropical ridge, Hurricane Gilbert and Indianola Hurricane of 1886 need to be expanded. Camille and Andrew can be our wishlist FA's. I'll do Chanchu's summary, if you want.
Typhoon Chanchu near its peakTyphoon Chanchu was the first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Forming on May 9 over the open western Pacific Ocean, Chanchu moved over the Philippines on the 11th. There, it dropped heavy rainfall, causing mudslides, crop damage, and 41 deaths. It moved into the South China Sea, where it rapidly strengthened to a Super Typhoon on May 14, one of only two super typhoons in the sea. It turned to the north, weakened, and struck the Fujian province of China as a minimal typhoon on the 17th. The typhoon flooded 192 houses, while heavy rainfall caused deadly mudslides. In China, Chanchu caused at least 25 deaths and $480 million in damage (2006 USD). Elsewhere on its path, strong waves from the typhoon sank eleven boats in Vietnam, killing at least 44 people. In Taiwan, heavy rainfall killed two people, while in Japan, severe waves killed one person and injured another.
Throughout the entire globe, there was only one other tropical cyclone. Tropical Storm Aletta existed in the eastern Pacific Ocean from May 25 to May 29, peaking as a 45 mph tropical storm.
Re. new articles, yes that is a long list. If you are going to choose just ten, I think any articles that got a DYK mention should be noted in that 10, so for this month it'd be Typhoon Joan (1970) and Dvorak technique. NSLE(T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-05-31)
And re. Chanchu, it should be 2006 USD, not 2005. Perhaps, after describing a "storm of the month", go on to say what other cyclones were active in the month, so in this case you'd add a line saying something like "Tropical Storm Aletta also existed from May 25 to May 29 in the Eastern Pacific." NSLE(T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-05-31)
OK, that sounds good. Chanchu and Storm of 1804 also got mention. I think GA's or aboves should also get automatically in. I added Aletta. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we want to be emphasising new articles quite so much; I'd rather see improved articles given primacy--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Or include it prominently in the first "issue", if it can be called that, so they get at least one, and then they can decide. Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. So how should we organize the first issue? What should the title be? I was thinking something like The Tropical Times, though something less corny could work. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh, that's a pretty plain title :) Come on, we're overzealous mashchists! We should come up with a name that shows it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The newsletter itself should be templated or made into a subpage, and the rest can go on talk pages of the template or subpage. NSLE(T+C) at 01:57 UTC (2006-05-31)
That sounds more like a headline to me though; "The Spinning Cyclone" works better. Hey, how about "The Fishspinner", lol?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're gonna have a quote of the month the forecast discusion for vince ("If it looks like a hurricane it must be a hurricane") is a definite must...haha...then there is always the forecast discusions for epsilon which got kind of comical near the endDr Denim14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved the mailing list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Member list, which seems more logical - we can give the newsletter stuff a better structure then. We can have /Newsletter showing the current edition, somewhere to archive them systematically and so on. I think discussion of content and preparation of the next issue should be done on the /Newsletter talk. This would mean the talk page contains the upcoming version and the main page shows the one last published.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've copied this over to /Newsletter. Three sections there: content discussion (this stuff), formatting discussion and the work up of the first newsletter.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
How about we change the collaboration of the fortnight to collaboration of the month? We could tie it in with the newsletter then, the publicity might help it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but the collaboration never got anywhere. The first one was Mitch, which I practically did my self. Tracy was one for a while, but nothing happened. Camille was after that, of which Icelandic Hurricane and another user did most of it. Now it's Gilbert. It could work, maybe as part of the FA wishlist. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the NOAA archives I found a couple interesting pictures. First this image says it shows the first tropical cyclone photographed by a meteorological satellite (in the South Pacific in April 1960). The second image is even earlier, in the mid 1950's. I can't figure out which storm that image shows though, from the timeframe my initial guess it is Hurricane Hazel, but the caption says "near Del Rio, Texas", but there were no tropical cyclones in that area in October 1954. Any ideas which storm it is?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
might it be that the view is centered over Del Rio?...in which case it could be Hurricane Hazel or Hurricane #8 according the the Unisys storm track archive...
I remember someone saying that there was a picture of a td over the Rio Del or Rio grande, but I never saw the picture. Now that I've seen it, it looks nothing like a td. So, who knows, but when we find out, we should defenitely put it on Wikipedia with the storm description of it. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk)19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the first satellite, Sputnik, was launched by the Russians in 1957, and the first weather satellite was not launched until February 1959. The 1954 source is wrong. Check 1959 storms near Del Rio. Runningonbrains23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It turns out I'm an idiot and didnt read the caption. As for the identity of the storm in question, I have no idea. The caption could most certainly be wrong: the NOAA photo archives have been inaccurate in the past. Runningonbrains23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Gasp!...NOAA wrong?...j/k...anywho...I seem to find idiocracy is common among geniuses...it's the simple things that confuse us...haha...anywho...the identity of this image is going to bug me until I find out what it is...Dr Denim11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I contacted some people involved in the hurricane re-analysis back in 2004 about the Navy rocket picture, and they confirm that it appears to be a tropical depression, and was handled as such in real-time. It had a large circulation, and in the daily maps, the ships definitely knew it was there because all the obs were well over 100 miles from the center. When I ordered the picture (which I have at work), the guy working for the Navy archives started bit...rather, complaining severely...about the fact his organization's budget was severely cut by the Pentagon/White House. All I could do with sit there, listen, and agree that it was a shame. Thegreatdr18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I gots a question
Since you seem to be in the know about the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject (having created it and all), so I wanted to ask exactly how the assessments work for the tropical cyclones. I am kind of new to wikipedia (only a few months in), so I'm still catching up on all the little features. I think it's a good thing, having a ranking system so you can quickly see which articles need the most work. But it seems to be unique to only a few groups of articles (Tropical cyclones, chemsitry, etc.). Why is this, how does it work, and how do I get other articles assessed? Runningonbrains23:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the code is recycled at {{v0.5}} (and also at {{hurricane}}, but there's other things there, so the code may be a bit more confusing). What happens is that you make a call to an assessment template (all of them are listed at Template:Grading scheme), such as {{hurricane|class=A}}, which then puts an article on Category:A-Class hurricane articles. This is then read by a bot, which does all the dirty work for you.
If no one has any objections, I am going to nominate the articles I mentioned above (see More on WP:1.0). I doubt JTWC or NHC are going to make it in their stub-to-start class states, so I decided against them. I think the storm articles mentioned are good ones to include, also included should be the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season. From what I have read, I believe we can improve the articles after they are nominated and accepted. Runningonbrains06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I went a little bit overboard over the past day, extending the table on my user page to show the quality of all Atlantic storm/season articles. I think it summarises the state of our articles pretty well - I wonder if it might be more sensible in project space and not my user space though, its a useful summary for us all I think; particularly in conjunction with the table Hink made (for the newsletter).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability
First off, I'm sorry if this has been mentioned. Personally I wouldn't prefer to go through five archived pages to check. Now, how does a storm become 'notable'? For example, I noticed that in Talk:Hurricane Faith, Jdorje says that the article shouldn't be based on trivia but based on impact. So the question is, should articles like Hurricane Faith be created? Is it notable because of trivia? -Tcwd | Talk15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Faith is notable due to its track. It lasted further north than any other tropical cyclone. Unfortunately, notable is subjective, and Jdorje doesn't find long lasting storms notable (like Ginger). In my book, an article can only be created if there's enough information. Look at Matthew. It caused only $300,000 in damage, yet because there was enough information I created it, and it's now B class. For older storms, notable=information (basically), but newer storms don't have that problem. Every 2005 storm has an article, and there's no problem with that. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What I don't want to see is an argument on the lines of "this storm is notable so it should have an article". It gets a mention in the season article, if thats all there is to say about it, an article just isn't justified (though the redirect is useful). With 2005 storms there is so much more info available (the TCR + advisories at minimum). Faith is spectacularly info poor - I can't even find the TCRs for 1966 online (though I might not be looking in the right place). I am all for Faith having an article, but it should have that impact stuff sourced.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
it seems that if the section in the season report seems to long relative to the others then the storm has at least become notable enough to someone to find enough information to make it the length of an article...whatever that length may be...anywho...btw...did you check the NCDC for reports?...can't remember if they keep tabs on those on their website or not...I also have a website somewhere that has a bunch of old newspaper articles...if I find it I'll post it on that page..Dr Denim18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Satellite imagery
It was mentioned I should drop a note on this page, so I am. =) Most of you know about the GIBBS (geostationary) imagery that currently runs back to 1983. Plans are by early next year that it will be expanding back to 1979...very good news. For those unwilling to wait, there is already polar orbiting imagery back to 1978 online through NCDC in their section on CLASS. Someone down at the LCH office made a DVD of the Atlantic seasons back through the 1970s already...which can be ordered through either NCDC or by mailing a set of DVD-burnable disks to LCH. Thegreatdr18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should move the articles of the older storms (which are mostly old articles predating the current philosophy) from "Storm name" to "Storm name (season)", with the exception of retirees of course. The one problem storm for this is Hurricane Alice; If we were to follow Zeta's technique we get Hurricane Alice (1954). Both of these names have the problem that the first Alice of 1954 is actually more notable (55 deaths). I do not think Alice2 is worthy of the main article, especially as its not that unique now with Zeta having occured. Perhaps both Alice and Zeta should be moved to Alice (1954-55) and Zeta (2005-06)?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What if it was the only use of the name? If it was only used once, there's no real need for the year disambiguation. The reason 2005 had it is because there's a chance the names could be reused in the future. Those names in the past on old lists are done with. If the old names were to be chosen as a replacement name, then they could be renamed, but there's no real point. On the other hand, because there were multiple Alices, the year disambiguator should be there. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I forget how volatile the naming lists were originally. Even if they weren't retired many names were only used once, though I feel too many of the old storms have the main name, I think I'll change any which need disambiguation. We need to decide what is correct for Alice though, that storm should not have the main name. Another question shouldn't Hurricane Emily be the disambig page given the non-retirement of the 2005 storm?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Alice should be Hurricane Alice (1954), as it formed in 1954. There's a very low chance that the other Alice will get an article, as there's next to no information on it. However, if that were to happen, then changes could be made. Yes, Emily should be the disambiguation page, I think. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Move Emily to a disambiguation page, leave Zeta as is, leave Alice 2 as is unless we get more info on Alice 1 (so the year of formation is the year inside the parentheses), leave the articles for older named storms as is iff that occasion was the only usage of that name. Titoxd(?!? - help us)21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So basically a storm gets the main page iff it is the only use of that name or it is retired? I'm going to sort out all the disambigs that is useful to know...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion at the assessment talk page about the next FAC, but I'm posting notice of it here because it is more visible in this page. We're discussing whether Hurricane John or Hurricane Katrina should be next. Of course, Katrina is expected to be a difficult nomination, so that's why we need all the eyes we can get if we decide to nominate it. Titoxd(?!? - help us)22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit sprawling. Please see my modifcations here, compare to this. Also, I think it would be nice to have a 'jump' year at either end of the hurricane seasons. So e.g. the 1995 hurricane season would go: 1990 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 or: -5 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 +5 TimL03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting little idea there. However, I don't know how useful it is. Personally, I don't use the year jumper too much, and when I do, I go year by year. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I don't think it would be worth the effort to make all of those changes. It doesn't take that much effort to click on the seasons page, then go to the season you want. Anyone else? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, same I either jump one year at a time by using the links or jump multiple years by typing it manually. I do have a problem with the "Last Storm Dissipated" though. When we say dissipated we don't mean dissipated but mean it dissipated or became extratropical - big difference.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, forget the jump idea. However the other changes make it quite a bit less sprawling which I think is good since its designed for information at-a-glance. TimL15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Useful links
For everyone interested in editing articles, here are some useful links I would strongly recommend.
http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms - This has information from every tropical cyclone impacting the United States from 1994 to the present. It's a little annoying to source, but it's great with damage totals. Also, it provides information for areas that have little elsewhere. For example, it has tons of information on Katrina's impact in Alabama.
http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND - This has information on tropical cyclones throughout the world from 1984 to the present, excluding the United States and Canada. Not every tropical cyclone is mentioned, but the more damaging ones are.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml - This is the National Hurricane Center archive. The Atlantic section has a lot of information from 1958-1969 and from 1991 to 1995. The EPAC has lots from 1988 to 1995. The archive includes tropical discussions, which can be very useful for the preparations section. If a tropical storm or hurricane was forecasted to intensify much more than it actually did, or not forecasted to intensify when it did, be sure to mention it.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html - This is the Atlantic hurricane database from 1851 to present, though it focuses on older storms. A useful part of it is the best track data, which is the official source for tracking data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/gibbs.html - Most probably have it now, but in case you don't, this page has Public Domain satellite imagery from August of 1983 to present. It isn't perfect, but it has years of satellite images for most of the entire world. There's still lots of storms out there that don't have images here, and they can be found in that link.
Actually a comment here (I couldn't resist). The BoM best track has a (10 min) sustained winds code of the form "H1, H2, H3, H4, H5". The minimum windspeeds for them are 33, 42, 50, 60, 70 m/s - sound familiar?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A few users and myself have been discussing the possibility of expanding the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject elsewhere, namely to the Simple English Wikipedia. We've contacted a few users whose writing is a little too simplistic for here, but would be perfect for the Simple English Wikipedia. The Simple Wikipedia has an article on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 1963 season, and a stub about Katrina. I propose we create a secondary Wikiproject to get some attention over there. Working there is completely voluntary... don't worry, we're not kicking you out. If you go over there, we'd stay in contact, and help a little if necessary. Just be sure that you can use simple wording, short sentences, and no spelling errors. Does this sound like a good idea? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We should decide once and for all what to do with them. Now, some older seasons, like the 1946 Atlantic hurricane season are getting them, and there's no point. If there's one or two storms, there's still no point. If someone was at the one article and they wanted to go to the other, there's the back button and the season link right there in the article. There's no point in going back and deleting all of them, but I think we should have a cut off date. I vote for 1950, and any before will be deleted (really, there's not that many pre-1950 articles). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally hate them for all seasons, but if we must have them, then only use them for highly notable, busy seasons like 2004 or 2005. If we much have a cutoff date, then use 1950, when storms were named. The button bar is 100% useless without a standard lettering system. --Golbez19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
True, I hate them as well. If it were up to me, we'd only have them for seasons with 4 or more articles; 1955, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Before 1950, the following seasons have button bars, either currently on the page or the button bar has been removed; 1946, 1933, 1914 (God knows why), and 1887. There's no need for them, as none of them have any storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure if I would go quite so far as to hate hate them, but they only have much point where there is a lot of storm articles (2005). They have no utility in the other basins, so I'm inclined to wonder why bother at all? That way we can be consistent across all articles. Certainly this expansion is pointless post-95 only please (at most).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What about 1985? There's 6 storms there, and could conceivably have a purpose. Other than that, though, post 1995 only sounds good. That's about the only area where there could be more storm articles due to enough information, so button bars for these seasons only sounds good. Most other seasons, with the exceptions I listed above with 4 articles, don't really need them. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
One minor fix should be done to them, I noticed it a LOT with 2005 AHS when I was doing the major work on improving the minor storms. The "I" storm, in particular, should be wrapped by nbsp's and possibly the other letters too. Compare how easy it is to select 2005's Irene to 2004's Ivan and you will see why...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've personally thought that there is no point in a button bar for seasons that don't have articles (or even a section!) on every storm. So, if a pre-requisite is adopted, it should be having all storms before the bar. Titoxd(?!? - help us)21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. 2004 shouldn't be too hard, as it seems like some users are itching to do all articles for that. I am personally ready for 2003, as, in case it is needed, I am ready to do Erika, Grace, Henri, and Nicholas. Kate should be easy (could have impact section) and Mindy shouldn't be bad (definite impact), leaving Danny and Peter as the only ones left, which should be very easy. 2002 will be a bit harder, as there's only 3 storms for 14 storms. However, most were landfalling, so Bertha, Edouard, Fay, Hanna, and Kyle should be fairly easy. The rest might be a little hard. 2001 has a lot of fish storms, but Chantal, Danny, and Karen shouldn't be bad due to their impact. The rest will be a little hard. For 2000, I am prepared to write articles for Debby, Helene, Leslie, and Michael, if needed, but the rest will be a little hard due to non-impact. 1999 will be easy to finish, as Harvey had an impact and Katrina effected nations a year after Mitch. All that's left is Arlene, Cindy, and Emily. 1998 has a lot of fish storms, possibly making it hard to have articles for every storm. Charley and Hermine will be the only relatively easy ones. IMO that's the absolute furthest for all storm article seasons. However, we shouldn't do all storms for the sake of the button bars. We should only do it when we agree we should. I'll try and help out with Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I think it looks pretty bad. Please, calm down or stop with the article creating. If you want to make a new article, make a genuine effort to make it look good. Try and use the tips for a good article. Add inline references. Most of all, use good spelling and grammar. We need more good articles, be it making new good ones or improving existing articles to a better quality. Adding more non-referenced, poorly-written, and short articles is completely detrimental to our progress, as someone will have to go back and rewrite it. If you can't make a good new article, then work on an existing article. Any storm since 1995 has plenty more information out there, so you could pick just one at random. I'll list the ones that need to be bettered. Erin, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Bertha, Josephine, Bonnie, Charley (1998), Earl, Frances (1998), Irene, Gordon, Gabrielle, Iris, Gustav, Isidore, Lili, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Frances (2004), Gaston, or Jeanne. If none of them sound good, there plenty others out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I remember that a long time ago I said that buttonbars are useless for seasons before 1960. The reason? Because there is no too much information about the storms and therefore no articles. Well, that's my comment. juan andrés17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, we don't need more articles. The whole point of the issue is to get rid of the button bars, not to add articles so we can keep them. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
We're probably one of the WikiProject farther along on the push to 1.0, and since I'm involved with that project too, I added the next request from them to WikiProjects; importance rankings. Right now, I added my personal importance assessment to the articles listed on the WikiProject table, and I'd like for others to go over them. Comments? Titoxd(?!? - help us)04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
However, the importance rankings is a bit subjective. IMO, Floyd is of high importance, especially to people the Mid-Atlantic/Carolinas. How do we determine what is more or less important? Hurricanehink00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You guys might be interested at the list at User:Mathbot/WP1.0, as it is a listing of our entire assessment so far. As to the importance question: what I would think is that Tropical cyclone is a {{Top-Class}} article, while all retired hurricanes are at least {{Mid-Class}} articles, with {{High-Class}} to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Storms not retired are {{Low-Class}} articles, unless there's a particular reason they're important. Titoxd(?!? - help us)04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hink: subjectivity is inevitable, but it's not a huge problem. Assessments are subjective too; it just means sometimes we have to discuss them and come to an agreement/compromise. And, I would agree Floyd should be High class, but then I live in NC. Tito: the mathbot list is interesting, but why does it not include any GA-Class articles? Does mathbot not know about GA? — jdorje (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I copy/pasted this old discussion from the archive, as the bot is recording importance now. I think we should adjust the template to allow for it. I think the default classes are low for non-retired and mid for retired, seasonal and prenamed storms (as they generally would have been retired). Obviously those are flexible, but I think they are reasonable starting positions. Any non-storm / season articles should be determined on a case by case basis and may be ANY level of importance. --Nilfanion (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Things to do (apart from assessment) is to determine what we want to do with the non-assessed articles; should they have multiple importance classes? Also the Cat structure needs revising, I just copy/pasted into the quality Cat for now.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the importance classes should go like this. Top class should only be Tropical cyclone, as no others are of extreme importance. For seasonal articles, if there are 19 or more storms, it's high class. 14 to 19 is mid (unless the season was exceptional, like 1961 which had 7 major hurricanes with 11 storms). Below 14 is low. For storm articles, they should be based primarily on impact. High class should be storms that caused over $10 billion in damage (2006 USD) or over 100 deaths. Mid-class should be storms that caused between $500 million to $10 billion in damage (2006 USD) or 30 to 100 deaths, or had an important record (John or Tip). Low class should be anything under $500 million or 0-30 deaths, or a storm that had an article due to information, not notability (like 2005 Fishes). As for non-storm or seasonal articles, it should be based on how often the term is used. Saffir-Simpson would be high, Eye would be high, other lesser things would be Mid or low, etc. I think the importance classes are fine as they are. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats about what I was thinking, but best to check. I noticed that Mathbot is picking up importance, so we should try and get that metadata included now. I modified the hurricane template to allow it but I may have got the cats wrong. Can someone double check them? Then we only have to do all the categorisation...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to, as I've played around with the category scheme so it can be picked up by Mathbot now. I personally think that all the retired storms are at least a Mid-Class, by default... Titoxd(?!?)21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets argue it on a case-by-case basis, on the articles talk. Here's a question though. Is Hurricane Katrina Top-Class? I think it could count as such given its extreme importance as more than a mere tropical cyclone.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Well, you could talk about Katrina's on the Katrina article (case-by-case, as you said). So does it mean that most storms will be low or medium class? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. The damage was mostly caused by the precursor extratropical storm, while the actual hurricane did next to nothing. On the other hand, there's not going to be an article on the extratropical storm. I suppose it should be mid-importance. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should make things simple for the seasons seasons. Let's make all seasons back to (arbitrary date in each basin) mid-importance, even if they are really quiet. For example 1950 in the WPac, EPac and Atlantic. All earlier seasons are low class. However, if the season is in some way significant (most active) I think bump the class up a notch. How does this sound?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think 1950 would be fairly important for Atlantic. It was the first time names had been used for the Atlantic Ocean, and had the most number of major hurricanes in an Atlantic history. Not all earlier seasons would be low class, either. 1914 should be mid, simply for being the least active season ever. 1893, 1887, or 1886 are all fairly important, as well. Your crierion sounds good, though is a little undefined. Sure, if it is any superlative (most active, most hurricanes), then it's mid, but what if it's not? Why is 1994 or 1990, for example, mid? How much weight should the season's storms have? For storms, we have over $500 million or 30+ deaths. What should be the criteria for seasons? It shouldn't be a damage or death thing, as 1992 would be mid or high despite having only one notable storm. What about this? If a season has two or more storms that were retired, caused over 50 deaths, or caused more than $800 million in damage, then it's mid. It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but it's an example. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason I say no season since 1950 should be Low-class is imagine if we just had the Mid or higher articles, it would seem wrong to have 92, 93, 95 but not 94 for example. Importance rates the articles importance to us, not the signifcance of the subject there is a subtle difference IMO. I think it is as important for us to have 1983 Atlantic hurricane season as it is to have Hurricane Juan. As to the older seasons, you are probably right, but those are ones where the stub level quality will be a hinderance to deciding how important the season actually is. I think we should default to Mid for recent and Low for older (though being very flexible on both seems right), note 2005AHS is high, which I think is fair and I think the other "most active" seasons should be high too.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I mis-intrepreted you, and I suppose that works. 1950 to 2006 are mid at the minimum. I wish, though, that there were more categories. Mid is a very wide area. There's a huge difference in importance for the 1962 season for the 1985 season, for example. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I may not know much about such things, but I don't think that Tropical cyclone should be the only Top-class. In my understanding Top-class is supposed to reflect the article's indespensibility for knowledge the topic. To me, this would make at least a few individual storms (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew, and maybe even List of notable tropical cyclones).
Top-Class is right now used for articles which fit either WP:CORE, WP:VA, or articles which we believe MUST be in an encyclopedia for it to be complete. It can be expanded a bit further, but Katrina is arguably a Top-Class article. Titoxd(?!?)07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
High for Katrina? I'd say it is a Top-Class article (certainly the only individual storm to be such), being the flagship article of the project that put us in the eye of the media... CrazyC8322:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I recommended that a new class be created for current events (i.e. the 2006 season page, current storms) that come and go very fast. It could be called the "Current-class". Any thoughts? CrazyC8322:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea. Though it isn't part of the rest of the scheme, it would work well for storms like Alberto. Alberto is a good article for a current storm, but it is bound to change a lot. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done all the initial categorisations now, odds are I got several a bit wrong but I just wanted to depopulate the unassessed class. Now the intial quality reviewer should also assign the importance. There are a few articles I noted that shouldn't exist - Gallery of 1900 Galveston Hurricane images is the most obvious as it has been fully transwikied to commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read and re-read the assesment scale and I still don't see how the Wilma article would be qualified as Start and not B class. Are you all using a different set of criteria? TimL14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion should be on the Wilma page. This is how I see it. The assessment scale is weighed, so more notable and damaging storms will need more to be a B class than other storms. It also needs a lot of information. With that information, though, you need a lot of organization, too. One more thing. A class is only given if it is relatively close to FA class. The same logic should be applied for B class to GA class. Using the GA class criteria, storm articles need to have American units and Metric units, a fair use rationale for all fair use pictures, and inline sourcing. Wilma is missing a lot of this. That's why it's start class. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
.jpg)