Jump to content

Talk:2015 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2015 Pacific hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star2015 Pacific hurricane season is the main article in the 2015 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2019Good article nomineeListed
June 8, 2019Good topic candidateNot promoted
March 16, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Time zones

[edit]

For now, I have listed 1E (now Andres) using PDT, but its first public advisory uses MDT, and states that the use of local time zones will now be used for the first time this year. Should we continue using PDT or start using whatever time zone is indicated by the public advisory?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Just saying and keep in mind. Please next time, when a new storm develops and create an infobox and its information please use the correct dates as you did to 01E a while ago. You did May 29, however it's still May 28. Unless you are a time traveler! Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013: It's late for me, so I ask that you forgive this error (I usually don't make them). Also, case in point: PDT is no longer the only timezone in public advisories in this basin. What do you think?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I just said keep in mind for future storms. For the time zones you are talking about... I am not really a person who edits in the Pacific hurricane seasons (soz), but I will try this year and as much as I can. I might possibly stay with PDT or the normal version in the E Pacifc. Ask @Yellow Evan: since he likes the E Pacific. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We should use what the actual Public Advisory says, so if local time zones is a new thing, then so be it. Dustin (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use what the public advisory uses. We do it with CPHC AOR storms (in HST) and in the Atlantic. YE Pacific Hurricane 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should perhaps add a note to the article mentioning this new practice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but is it necessary? Maybe on timeline articles, but at least here, it doesn't seem to be necessary. Dustin (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a note, but IMO add it to the seasonal summary section of this article and to the lead in the timeline. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andres's peak intensity

[edit]

Do we go by NHC or the best track? If we go by NHC advisories, it will be 95 knots (90 knots at 21Z and 95 knots at 03Z). But if we go by the operational best track it should be 100 knots (a major hurricane).Krit-tonkla talk 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We go by advisories until the TCR comes out (or if the monthly summary upgrades it). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Hink said...also, track maps will be adjusted from the operational best track to match the advisory intensities to avoid confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to seem underinformed... maybe I haven't been around for long enough, but what is your source for this operational best track? Dustin (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Krit-tonkla talk 04:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what about JTWC? I do not want to give the NHC the special treatment when it comes to operational best tracks. Supportstorm (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: Are the JTWC and the NHC different? What sources are you looking at? Both are administered by the United States. Dustin (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The JTWC and NHC are run by different U.S. programs. In any basin aside from East Pacific and North Atlantic this Wikipedia project uses JTWC operational best track for intensity. However, we do not use the NHC best track. I'm questioning why when both organizations issue advisories and best tracks that we choose one over the other in different basins. Supportstorm (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem with the NHC is that its advisories use the 03/09/15/21z intensity which can be different from the the BT's 00/06/12/18z. Krit-tonkla talk 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Andres took care of business by becoming a major, so it's less of an issue. Thank the storm :P Also, NHC is the RMSC for the EPAC and ATL, so that takes priority over the JTWC. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping the storm would dissipate because I may possibly lose internet access after today. Dustin (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, BTW. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just don't want to miss anything. Maybe things will change, here; I really don't know. Dustin (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So can I use the BT for track maps now? Krit-tonkla talk 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Andres has peaked at 125 knots for now officially. But the NHC said in the discussion package it peaked at 130 knots. Should we go with 125 peak or 130 peak? I'd assume 125, but don't care either way. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Id go 130 kts since thats what NHC said it peaked at and is probably what the RBT's will show. I will also remind people that the Running Best Tracks is advertised in every single TCR produced by NHC these days, as a result i do not see the problem with using it for 5-10 kt increases after the fact even if it means an upgrade to Cat 3 or 5.Jason Rees (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe mention both? Something like - "The NHC upgraded Andres to a peak of 145 mph, although they noted that winds could have reached 150 mph at 09:00 UTC." Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't say it could have been. They said estimated. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word estimated in my book means that its 130 kts not 125 kts, since we are mainly estimating the windspeeds rather than saying for certain.Jason Rees (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I second this. Most values for Andres have been estimated given the lack of a reconnaissance aircraft. I changed the article a while ago to reflect 130kt. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too; the change isn't a difference of category so it's not a big deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on using 130 kt as well, for now at least. I'll ask around the office tomorrow once the media frenzy for the start of the Atlantic season dies down and see what they say just to be sure. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean ask around the NHC? Do you work with the NHC somehow? Dustin (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He probably means sending emails (I think). United States Man (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cyclonebikit works there. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but what is he doing? I mean, what for? If it is too personal or something, no response is necessary. Dustin (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

← I'm working with Dr. Landsea on the Atlantic reanalysis project, currently finishing up the last few storms of 1964. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Wow, didn't know that. Must be a fun and interesting job. United States Man (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please limit the off topic talk on this page per wiki rules and generally confine it to the various Facebook TC Groups (AHS, PHS, PTS, IOTCS, SPTCS, etc). Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you don't have to be so rude. It's not like this is commonplace. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: Its not being rude to remind people of the wiki rules, especially when this topic has already gone off topic once. I would like it if we could get back to the topic in hand and figure out if we should use the RBT on a regular basis in all basins. My personal feeling is that we should since the RBT is updated every six hours in all basins, rather than the mixture of 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 hourly advisories that we currently get from the United States Warning Centres.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with going a little off-tropic, and this didn't truly cross the line, it just can't turn into a 10kb discussion about what we do for a living. Either way, it appears we all agree with using 130. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that since the NHC explicitly stated the the peak was at 130 knots, then it is a good idea to use that. As Jasper Deng said above, it doesn't make any difference in the category anyway. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be concerned that the Running Best Track doesn't have 130 kt? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because since it is weakening, there is no point in updating the ATCF, since the persistence input in the SHIPS model is more or less the same. And FYI, they said it peaked at 130 knts at 9z, which is between the 6z and 12z updates. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Storm names

[edit]

In the past, the actual storm titles have been included and not just their names (at least in the EPac and Atl). Jasper Deng is the person who first added the infobox for what is now Andres, and he just put Two-E in the infobox (without the "Tropical Depression" part of the storm's title). I don't remember him being here last year, so I can't say anything about previous instances of him in particular, but at least last year in the Pacific, we always included "Tropical Depression", "Tropical Storm", and "Hurricane" in the infoboxes. I have been reverted twice by Typhoon2013/Nino Marakot, and as a result, I am forced to bring this to the talk page. Maybe you don't have to change it, but the full title of 01E is "Hurricane Andres", not just "Andres", and if I am willing to take the time to change it when the storm later weakens, what is the purpose in re-removing the "Tropical Depression/Tropical Storm/Hurricane" from the infobox? Dustin (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters either way... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. I was just following the convention in the west Pacific where only the names, not the storm types, were in the infoboxes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be there after the storm is gone anyways...—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more with @Dustin V. S.:. Since I also edited in the 2014 PHS last year for active storms, the infoboxes include the name and the storm type (TD, TS, H). It is more better to stay that way. However as @TropicalAnalystwx13: said, it doesn't matter really. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca article???

[edit]

Hi. I might start a "start-off" article for Hurricane Blanca sometime later. Since it is going to make landfall soon (maybe) and its an early landfalling storm, I believe Blanca does suppose to have an article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Whether or not Blanca gets an article will primarily depend on how significant its impacts are. It might be better to start out by just expanding Hurricane Blanca's section before starting an article. Those are just my thoughts, though. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustin V. S.: Ok. Otherwise I'll just wait for 1-2 more days. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have what will hopefully eventually turn into a possible Blanca article later on (appears to have played its way into an article, but there could be unknown unknowns, I realize it's just a c/p of the season section right now). YE Pacific Hurricane 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca image

[edit]

Hi. What I am really annoyed about storm images are the size. That's why I changed the real Blanca image to a better size, and yes it does sucks if the image is not in gallery version. However Dustin reverted me because it's not in gallery version (which the gallery version is at a small size). There are three choices, unless we fix the size of it, find another photo at peak intensity (luckily Blanca made a second peak), or just keep searching a better Blanca image. If we just leave it alone, it kind of sucks with the image of Blanca being the smallest (maybe). What do you guys think of Blanca's image? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: The gallery version of the Blanca image is larger, not smaller. If it appears smaller, then it is not the image, but the infobox which is responsible. Nevertheless, I did upload a partly cropped version to fit slightly better. I know it's probably not what you wanted, but I cannot do much better without cutting off part of the storm or losing image quality. Dustin (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustin V. S.: I don't know how to crop images since I should say that I am still new, but if it's ok to make the image just the same as Andres' image size. If you've already done it and I haven't seen it, thank you. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to avoid horizontally cropped images from the MODIS gallery. It really annoys me that they started that practice. Anyway when this happens just do what Dustin did. Crop it to fit a vertical profile if applicable. Supportstorm (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names for CPac

[edit]

I feel we are running out of names - what if we do? Do we make a whole article then? Do we ask TWC or NOAA for names? What will we do?? 71.66.245.204 (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are eight names left on the current list of names for the Central Pacific. Once that's exhausted, they'll go back to the first list. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't. CPHC uses a rotating list of names. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Todo

[edit]

Lately, I don't see that much people updating on current TCs in this page. No one edited / updated the infobox during Hilda. Just saying that I am a person who only edits in the WPac pages, however I'm interested in the CPac page which is a page like this. Also since this year is predicted to be a 'hyperactive' season especially when we broke the record of having the most Central Pacific named storms by tomorrow (maybe), we need to contribute and help this article become a good one like the rest. I mean, we need to add more information to make the article look good. @Yellow Evan: and @Iune:, I thought you were the guys who always edit in the EPac pages? Also Iune, why didn't you edit anything on TS Iune last month? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Typhoon2013: I'm new to this, I'm gonna try and help out when I manage to learn how to edit stuff properly. I'm really super interested in TCs though :( Izmik (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izmik: Ok, so welcome! Be a member of our project, the Wikiproject Tropical cyclones! Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have spent virtually no time on wiki the past year or so, and don't like recent seasonal articles anyways. I know TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) in years past has kept the season articles up to date. YE Pacific Hurricane 07:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. At least TropicalAnalystwx13 is doing a great job so far when Kilo formed. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Typhoon2013: Did I update Loke's infoboxthingy properly? I just did one for Danny too. Izmik (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izmik: Not quite, close though. However the CPHC upgraded Loke back to a tropical storm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Typhoon2013: Sorry but I've been very busy lately so I can't find much time to edit... KN2731 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong but looking at the CPHC's hurricane map it looks like Loke came closer to the Aluetian Islands than the person that made the track map gave credit for. Not sure, but was just checking into it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.179.89 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo

[edit]

Is Kilo the first CPac named storm that became a major hurricane since Iniki? HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC) maybe we can do an aticle for Huricane kilo because it was one of the three category 4 Huricanes, along with Ignacio and Jimena?--68.6.143.63 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneGonzalo: No, the most recent storm that became a major hurricane in the CPHC was Neki in 2009.

An article for Kilo should be made. It also hit RUSSIA. Hurricane Su (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No noteworthy impact/aftermath + full story told in season articles = no standalone article for Kilo. Drdpw (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To-do 2

[edit]

We need a section for Ignacio and Kevin, plus sources for some other sections. I'll try to help out with current storms if they come along so others can help update other stuff, but I have school stuff. Izmik (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) I think we should have an article for Huricane Jimena because it almost became a Catgory 5 Huricane --107.77.229.152 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Marty section is empty!?

[edit]

Hello editors of this page, I was looking at this page just for fun. I went down and I saw that the Hurricane Marty section was completely empty! I decided to check the page history to see what happened and who removed it but I did not find any history match. What happened? If anyone has an answer to this question please reply below this comment or on my talk page. Thanks, 50.141.33.0 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has written anything for it yet, no content was ever removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But when I looked at this page a few days ago, I saw a lot of information in that area. I don't understand why there is nothing now. - 50.141.33.0 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.35.17 (talk) [reply]
That was probably the "current storm information" section which is removed once the storm dissipates. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I'll try to add stuff in all of the storm sections by the start of next year. I am just really busy and currently working out for the 2015 PTS article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is plagiarism a problem?

[edit]

Hi guys, I just wanted to confirm if plagiarism is a problem on Wikipedia. I wanted to check because for the Hurricane Marty section I copied almost exactly as it was written in the reference. If it is a problem, someone please reword the sentences. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit, Typhoon2013, Jasper Deng, and United States Man: Please, can you reply quickly? The answer to this question is crucial in determining how I will fill in empty sections in articles. I can help do it. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@73.223.175.207: Sorry I missed this before! Yes, plagiarism is a huge problem (both on Wikipedia and in general writing; read more about the on-site policy). Everything must be re-written in your own words or directly quoted, though large chunks of quoted text are discouraged. If you need an idea of how to appropriately write sections, take a look at some featured articles of past seasons by various editors. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United States Man is not a very active editor, just FYI. That said, what Cyclonebiskit said above generally applies. I believe that legal requirements are less strict with public domain sources (e.g. close paraphrasing may be allowed), but if you can, you should still make an effort to cite sources and present information originally (not by direct quote). Dustin (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with what has been said above. In the future, please do take the time to write things in your own words - I personally choose to never copy and paste any text from other articles, on-wiki or not, unless it is strictly for quoting purposes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hate me for this, but tbh I don't know what plagiarism is. It would be great if an anonymous user like you can help out like filling in empty storm sections! However it would be best that you should create an account, but you don't have to. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, for helping and informing me about plagiarism! I never heard about it on Wikipedia before.
@Dustin V. S.: I just picked out the first users I could think about. But I forgot about you. Sorry about that.
@Typhoon2013: Plagiarism is the act of writing an article by copying exactly how it is given in the references you use. (In my opinion, Wikipedia should have a robot to catch and fix plagiarism like Cluebot NG does for vandalism.) Just informing you, there are a lot of empty sections in 1995 Pacific hurricane season you might want to fill up. (And don't plagarize! Heh heh heh) (FYI, I was not even born in 1995.) And, you might want to reword the Hurricane Marty section in this article because I copied exactly as the reference. 73.223.175.207 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's isn't a problem. I'm just trying to help as I can! I understand that the second part of your above comment was directed at Typhoon2013 (I think?), and I wasn't born in 1995 myself, but that said, what sections are empty? Dustin (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant 1995 Pacific typhoon season. Sometimes, I just keep making mistakes. I had to revise my above comment 4 times before I got it right. 73.223.175.207 (talk) 05:57, —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 season now the second active/busiest? Or tied with 1985?

[edit]

According to the table in the List of Pacific hurricanes, 2015 is now the second busiest within the basin. However is it tied with 1985? Well the number of named storms and hurricanes have the same amount in both seasons, however there are more M. hurricanes this year. So is it really the second busiest, which makes 1985 now third? Or do we follow the amount of named storms? *At least it is likely to be second because models predict Rick forming during Nov. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is tied with 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Busiest is generally defined on wiki is most named storms. So 2015 is tied for second with 1985. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an article on Hurricane Patricia (2015)

[edit]

A category 5 hurricane heading straight into Mexico is noteworthy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's being worked on by someone else AFAIK. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being the strongest hurricane on record stronged that typhoon tip 3rd strongest and hurrican whilma 2ed strongest on record it needs a article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.243.206 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Patricia

[edit]

It's incredible that at this time yesterday, Patricia was only a tropical storm. I think it is a custom of sorts that Category 5 hurricanes in the East Pacific have articles written about them, and this cyclone looks to not only be intense but destructive as well. It might be a bit premature, but it may be worth establishing this as the primary topic of Hurricane Patricia. Thoughts? Drafts in the works? Dustin (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Hurricanehink has followed through. Thanks! I'm sorry to say that I won't be able to do much to help on this until mid-Saturday, I think. Dustin (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on making the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nine-C

[edit]

TXPN41 PHFO 310002

TCSNP1

CENTRAL PACIFIC TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY - FIXES

NWS CENTRAL PACIFIC HURRICANE CENTER HONOLULU HI

0000 UTC THU DEC 31 2015

A. Tropical depression 09-c.

B. 30/2330Z.

C. 2.0°N.

D. 175.2°W.

E. Hmwri8/goes-15.

F. T2.0/2.0/d1.5/24 hrs.

G. Vis/ir/eir.

H. Remarks: A 0.25 wrap yields a DT of 1.5. The MET is 2.0 and the Pat is 1.5. Due to constraints, the FT is based on the met.

I. Addl positions none.

$$

Eaton.

Should we add it? ABC paulista (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until advisories are issued. No need to rush. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2015 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malia's Report

[edit]

Now that Malia's report is up, I think it's time to update its track map here. @Cyclonebiskit: and @Supportstorm: could you guys please provide this? Thanks. ABC paulista (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia

[edit]

@Yellow Evan: has been somewhat hesitant against my recent addition of noting that Patricia was the second-strongest tropical cyclone worldwide, considering the storm is a bit more notable for that, and I would like some opinions on this as to why this is more notable for inclusion in infobox. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with YE when he says that it isnt really a notable record especially considering the state of the dataset we have. For example how do you know that June or Nora were not lower.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those reports were derived from JMA while the JTWC estimated a slightly higher pressure. Plus, no recon was sent in to observe the pressure and most of that was derived from satellite estimates. Patricia (and Tip to an extent), both had recon sent in, and although Patricia operationally was held at 879-880 mb, the 872 is derived from the continued deepening after recon left. Tip has an observation of 870 mb in its core from recon. So I still think the record of Patricia being the second-strongest cyclone worldwide is still notable, considering the fact that none of the estimates for June and Nora were measured from recon. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it doesn't belong in the infobox is because it was not the strongest system worldwide, rather it was the second, so it's a bit too trival for the infobox IMO, especially given that the infobox solely lists the strongest storm of the season. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert on the 1988 season page has the inclusion of it being the second-strongest Atlantic hurricane on record. I get where your coming from, but if it is noted in a similar fashion there, why can't it be done here? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 09:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea and was added by an IP. Should we be including the fact that 2015 also had the second highest number of named storms in the infobox as well? If so, why not add the third or fourth most active seasons to the infobox? Where do we draw the line here, especially given that this is an infobox, not prose? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Pali is a 2015 storm now!

[edit]

It's about time the northern hemisphere basins recognized that January storms are generally continuations of the previous season. The only references CPHC has provided thus far are via Facebook. Can we source Facebook for something like this, since it is coming straight from CPHC? Not sure how to proceed reference wise. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but why was it designated 1C? Also, CPHC lists Pali as a 2016 system. Also, is Alex now a 2015 storm? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's how ATCF forces the numbering. In 1988, when ATCF was developed and first used, no one considered a number of things we now see concerning tropical cyclones -- that tropical cyclones could/should cross Central America. NHC had real issues with the transition across Central America with their wind swaths, and had to use a method slated for 2017 to deal with both Matthew (storm could possibly move across its own track in a wide loop) and Otto. If you check the CPHC facebook page, it's extremely clear about Pali. I guess the next question is, was Ekeka considered part of the previous season too? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Thegreatdr: I have reverted you. Please wait until they post it on their official website. And the post I think you are referring to does not claim it formed in 2015. It only says they consider it a continuation of 2015. However, if it didn't form in the calendar year of 2015, it doesn't count.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CPHC is the RSMC Jasper, not you. Considering it as part of the 2015 hurricane season means exactly that -- it's a continuation of the 2015 season, not a part of the 2016 season. If you want to wait for something to show up on their website, I see no problem with it though. I'm sure Facebook is down there with blogs reference wise. By the way, why were so many blogs used as references in the Pali write-up? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the post. I think it implied that Pali formed in 2015-like conditions, separate from the 2016 weak La Nina conditions. Also, Pali is listed as part of 2016 here too. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Thegreatdr: Their statement is not even specific about that. It would go contrary to their usual convention (e.g. Hurricane Ekeka) of going by calendar year. And that post was about activity statistics - Pali may still be technically considered part of 2016; like I said, we need a more definitive proof than a Facebook post for such an assertion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't that they excluded Pali from the 2016 track map, you might have a point about uncertainty. I'd go check out the Facebook posting, sooner rather than later. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the post and would not consider it or its contents to be authoritative. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Does that mean we can strike out the blog entries associated with Pali considering it the earliest on the record as references? Asking for a friend.  :> Thegreatdr (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless and until the CPHC clarifies and affirms this position on their website with a final TCR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless we agree to no longer count Pali as a 2016 storm. Even then, at worse, the record can be tweaked a bit for clarification. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us. It is up to CPHC. You sailed safely past the logic flaw though -- revisit it, won't you? The RSMC Facebook page is less authoritative than a Joe Schmo blog about Pali? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because social media posts are not considered reliable sources in general - how do we know if this really is the opinion of the CPHC for sure until we see it on their official outlet, their website? --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the post is pretty definitive in declaring Pali a part of the 2015 season (regardless of whether it formed in 2015 or not), but I would wait for something official to show up on their website. atomic7732 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which as I posted, the CPHC still lists Pali as a 2016 TC on its website in 3 places. And I wouldn't consider Bob Henson and Jeff Masters Joe Schmo. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From this perspective, they are. One did research in Boulder CO for decades and the other is more of a weather historian. Neither ever worked at or near an RSMC. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they are experts in the field (in this case, meteorology), blogs are reasonably acceptable as reliable sources- see WP:UGC, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide.". Unless you are arguing that all people who don't work at RMSC/TCWC are not experts in meteorology, I thus see no reason why we have to limit ourselves to people that happened to work at a RMSC/TCWC, as the hurricane dataset is public record. BTW, the record is also confirmed by Eric Blake in a tweet, and he does work for a RMSC. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources confirm this is now online here, which places it at a slightly higher level than a tweet, Facebook posting, or blog. I'm not going to continue a revert war, for obvious 2007-based reasons. What say ye? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It lists Pali as part of 2016 on the chart/table, but doesn't include it on the track map. I do think Pali bears a mention in the 2015 season page but not included in 2015 totals, but included in 2016 totals. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your vantage point is nice, but that's not how the webpage reads. They exclude the storm from 2016 seasonal stats. On Line 1. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that source muddies things up a bit. It seems that they exclude it from the season, but state that it was part of the 2016 calendar year. But that doesn't mean that it was part of the 2015 season. Any off season storm would be excluded from the seasonal stats. If Pali had formed in May it wouldn't have been counted, but that doesn't make it was part of the 2015 season. What I do find interesting though is that the track map is extended south to the equator compared to the 2015 map here, which seems to suggest that they extended the map area as if to include Pali (and even 09C?), but its track does not show up. But that doesn't really have any merit, just an observation. atomic7732 23:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On page two, the bar chart lists 7 systems for 2016 (and 16 for 2015), while the table lists seven total storms, including Pali, but not one-C. As for Line 1, I think it's referring to systems that just occurred inside hurricane season, given that the same sentence mentions the official starting and ending dates, rather than that Pali was a 2015 system. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. And now you see it! We had a debate in the late 2000's decade about what to name these pages....2016 Pacific hurricanes or 2016 Pacific hurricane season. We also discussed splitting the northeast Pacific and north-central Pacific basins. The two terms mean different things -- whether or not to include the term hurricane season. As long as this article is named this way, I can't see how Pali stays in 2016, other than as a passing mention in the summary, like the prior TD. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be including only in-season storms in seasonal pages now? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the RSMC. You know this isn't a perfect system. Categories don't quite mesh between various centers now. If there's no comment, you go calendar year like you always have. Otherwise, you obey what they say. Wikipedia is the curated set of websites/data, not the establisher of new research. What the RSMC wants should go. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue though that the CPHC defines Pali as an out of season storm still part of cyclone year (hence why it's included on the table on page 2 of the seasonal summary). YE Pacific Hurricane 00:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A system can occur in 2016 and not be part of the hurricane season. CPHC just said that aloud. The name of these articles matter, as semantics matter. This is why we had the big debates during Zeta, with a smaller Omeka one. This is maintaining consistency with what the RSMC wants. Which is what we strive for when they define it for us. Correct? Thegreatdr (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zeta (and 9C) as well is a different situation. Zeta formed in late 2005, so it wasn't tecnhically a 2006 system. The argument over Omeka was a part of the 2010 season, although there was a debate on how to properly source its record and to break up EPAC and CPAC into individual season articles. But back to the subject matter here, as I stated earlier, I dispute the fact the CPHC said that it wasn't a part of the hurricane season, just occurred outside the official June 1-November 30, because Line 1 explicitly notes that six storms formed from June 1 to November 30. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CPHC considers Pali an "unusual out of season tropical cyclone." More precisely, Pali "isn't counted in either 2015 or 2016 hurricane season" (from correspondance between I and the chief CPHC/NWS HNL meteorologist Chris Brenchley). Off-season storms are simply that: not in season. Since Pali was influenced by conditions that carried over from the 2015 season (Brenchley remarked that "continuation of cyclone activity" in this case meant "residual warm waters and El Nino conditions"), I think it should definitely get a mention (or even a more extended, though still brief, summary) in the 2015 season article, but its storm section should rest in the 2016 season article since it formed in 2016. Given that the official hurricane season year-to-year is separated by several months, I think this is an appropriate placement; no official system exists to assign a parent season to off-season cyclones. If we were to place Pali entirely in the 2015 article, this would introduce a case-by-case need to assess which season off-season storm X belongs to, and once again, no official, verifiable, and unambiguous system exists for that (we would get into WP:OR quickly). The only unambiguous and clear-cut placement guidance we have are the dates of formation and dissipation of Pali, which leans it towards the 2016 article. That said, I'm still undecided on how to count off-season storms in post-season statistics (for, say, the infobox), though if we were to follow the official lead of the CPHC, it would not be counted in any seasonal aggregate. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've had correspondence with them, I'll take your word. Based on that, keeping the bulk of the content in 2016 but adding content to 2015 would make sense. HurricaneHink made this point as well, along with others, but that didn't make sense until Austin's above blurb. By the way, how are we treating this record wording which is blog sourced? At the very least, it needs to be more refined. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's not clear about the wording? YE Pacific Hurricane 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oho's Report

[edit]

Now that Oho's report is up, I think it's time to add its extratropical phase on its track map here. @Cyclonebiskit: and @Supportstorm: could you guys please provide this? Thanks. ABC paulista (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report is here. Left at 95 knots. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with their assessment of the continued extratropical phase, but I've updated the track maps regardless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More reports

[edit]

Now two storms had their reports released: Niala and Nine-C. @Cyclonebiskit: and @Supportstorm: could you guys please provide their updated tracks, please? Thanks. ABC paulista (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nine-C dissipation

[edit]

Ok guys, let's reach a consensus here. According to the Nine-C's TCR, the depression was officially downgraded into a remnant low at 00:00 UTC on January 1, 2016, so can we say that the system can be considered one of the ones that existed in two calendar years like Zeta and Jangmi? @KN2731: and @Cyclonebiskit: seem to agree that its dissipation was on December 31, 2015, but @Typhoon2013: and @MarioProtIV: seem to defend that the dissipation occured on January 1, 2016. So, Nine-C dissipated on December 31 2015 or January 1, 2016? ABC paulista (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: I checked the site of course for confirmation. But it seems like the dissipation is at Jan 1. Also the 00Z of 1/1 was their final advisory according to that. Also it's track in the site ends on Jan 1 (stating on the points). Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista, Typhoon2013, and MarioProtIV: The title of the report has the duration of the system as a tropical cyclone in large font for all TCRs. In the case of Nine-C, only December 31 is shown. Downgrade at 00z means it lasted up until but not including that time, so it did not last as a tropical depression into the New Year. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Oh weow, just kidding, what am I even up to?. I'm sorry I did not notice that. 09C dissipated and lasted for a day. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2015 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iune report

[edit]

@Cyclonebiskit: and @Supportstorm: could you guys please update the track of Tropical Storm Iune? Its report is up now. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Supportstorm (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will do in a bit. NoahTalk 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reviewed the article entirely. There will be a decent bit of work involved in improving the article due to its size. I have placed the article on hold as I'm sure this will take some time to complete. NoahTalk 22:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
 Done NoahTalk 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal summary

[edit]
 Done NoahTalk 20:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Systems

[edit]

I hate to say it, but this will need a decent bit of work. I will organize it for you to make it easier, but I will have a lot to point out due to the number of systems and variance within them. NoahTalk 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
 Not done NoahTalk 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June & July

[edit]

Andres

 Not done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca

 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos

 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wind shear and dry air afterwards led to rapid weakening, falling to tropical storm intensity on June 17 and degeneration into a remnant area of low pressure hours later" Should be afterward. What fell to TS status? Probably should be degenerating. NoahTalk 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halola

 Done NoahTalk 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores

 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique

 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " become Tropical Storm Enrique eighteen hours later." 18 hours per MOS:NUM. NoahTalk 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:NUM says Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words though. IIRC I spell out numbers if they can be expressed in one word. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo

 Done NoahTalk 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August

[edit]

Eleven-E

 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loke

 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo

 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio

 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimena

 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]

Linda

 Done NoahTalk 21:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixeteen-E

 Done NoahTalk 21:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October

[edit]

Oho

 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-C

 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nora

 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf

 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia

 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November & December

[edit]

Rick

 Done NoahTalk 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra

 Done NoahTalk 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originating from a tropical wave that emerged off the west coast of Africa on November 6, Sandra was first classified as a tropical depression on November 23 well south of Mexico. Environmental conditions, including high sea surface temperatures and low wind shear, were highly conducive to intensification and the storm quickly organized." Would change the first part to 'the system was classified as a tropical depression [...]'. When did the system become a TS and receive its name? NoahTalk 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NoahTalk 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storm names

[edit]
 Done NoahTalk 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I'm not a fan of interjecting in GA reviews but I just saw this GAN, and given my tenure and this article's importance, felt the need to interject. Could stuff from Stormdata be used to flesh out the sections for the US storms? Also use the NWS for Hawaii impact. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: to clarify by "Stormdata" are you referring to the NCDC storm events database? ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found some additional info for 16E. Found a tornado and thunderstorms supposedly boosted by moisture from Guillermo but I don't feel like bringing that in since I can't find a source that makes the link explicitly. NWS Honolulu's September pptn summary was useful for Jimena. The tropical disturbance mentioned in the August one doesn't seem to have been a tropical cyclone at any point (none of the dissipation dates coincide properly). October summary listed some impact from Nora which I've added. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 15:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from Dolores? YE Pacific Hurricane 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, forgot about there. Sources found, will add in soon. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-review comments

[edit]

@KN2731: I thoroughly went through the article over an hour and a half and fixed the remaining minor issues. I saw you still have some content to add, which will definitely improve the article. However, I feel the criteria for GA are met at this time and am passing this as a GA. I would highly suggest nominating the 2015 Pacific hurricane season for good topic now that all articles are good quality. If you really wanted to, you could easily get this to A class and possibly even FA at a later time. Whatever you decide to do, good luck. Sincerely, NoahTalk 21:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Dolores

[edit]

@Destroyeraa: The standard test is whether this article can accommodate the storm's impacts well. I think it does, and other stuff exists arguments do not hold water.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: I believe that there is more to elaborate on Dolores's impact. And also, please do not tell me what to do, as you did in this edit. Just because you have thousands of edits and "experienced," you are not superior to any other editors or even IP editors, and I can use the same revert on you as I can to other editors.
As for Dolores, I'll move the things you deleted to my sandbox to work on it and add more info. An also please explain why someone created articles on fish storms or storms that literally caused no or minimal damage, such as Bud. Destroyeraa 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: Really, no one should be using the "AGF" option on editors who are not brand new (so neither you, nor I). Bud 2018 had a direct landfall as a tropical cyclone and so did Carlos. Dolores did not. Again, WP:OSE is not an argument. Your additions added nothing substantial to what is already covered here in the season article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the redirect, I feel that I generally agree with Jasper. While I think you have good intentions, Dolores never struck land, and the price tag alone really isn't enough to justify an article. The Meteorological history and Impact sections were fine as part of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season article as is, and the lead just duplicates information from those aforementioned sections. The article just isn't necessary. Master of Time (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Master of Time and Jasper Deng: OK, OK. For the AGF RV, many editors still use it on me even though I have near 1000 edits. For Dolores, discussion closed. Good day to all of you. Destroyeraa 13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can expand Dolores' MH into two paragraphs, and add some info for Mexico, I'd support keeping the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I created a draft - Draft:Hurricane Dolores (2015). Destroyeraa 00:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pretty well developed article. Just add a bit for Mexico and should be good to go. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink and Hurricane Noah: The draft is still in progress. Yes, it needs work and is still mostly unchanged from the season article. It's still in progress, and there isn't a rush to finish Dolores's article. You can help me by adding to the draft.Destroyeraa 14:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t change my stance until it has more unique wording and is expanded a bit. NoahTalk 14:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: You can help me by adding to the draft. Destroyeraa 16:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, add a bit about Mexico. That would make it at least start class worthy. Fleshing our the MH more and adding more Cali/SW US would be needed for C/GA class. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: If you have time, can you help me with adding to the draft? Destroyeraa 00:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time for editing these days. Don't forget that there is no rush. If it takes a month for you to finish the article, no big deal. Just keep working on it until it's ready. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thanks. Yeah, everyone's busy at some level these days because most states have began to reopen and other stuff. Stay safe. Destroyeraa 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng, Master of Time, Hurricanehink, and Hurricane Noah: I have worked on the article, adding information about preps and impacts for Mexico, as well as some new information about a postponed Los Angeles Angels baseball game for impacts in the U.S. Could use some more sources and an expansion in the MH, but I think it is at least start-class worthy. Nott quite C class, but I'll keep working on it. What do you guys think? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks like there is enough content to sustain it as an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I published it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Destroyeraa (talk · contribs), because 2015 PHS is a good topic, you will have to improve Dolores's article within three months, or else the topic will be downgraded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thanks for publishing it!! Guess I'll have to expand the MH and rewrite the impacts section? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1200695828"