Jump to content

Talk:2018 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2018 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.
Featured topic star2018 Pacific hurricane season is the main article in the 2018 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured 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
September 19, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 19, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2021Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Tropical Storm Aletta (90E)

[edit]

Just now, I visited the Weather Channel website and MSN to check out the latest news on Invest 90E. I had just watched a quick 45 second video on the apposedly named Tropical Storm Aletta. Here is the link to the website: https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/video/tropical-storm-aletta-named-in-eastern-pacific/vp-AAwYnzG HurricaneCalebN (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. The NHC has not done that. The video is referring to an earlier incarnation of Aletta.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. HurricaneCalebN (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second earliest

[edit]

Do we really need to put that in the infobox? Second earliest doesn't sound that notable to me. We didn't put that for the second earliest Atlantic hurricane season: 1951 Atlantic hurricane season. INeedSupport (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be technical, I don't see a need for it even in 2017, since the infobox covers CPAC storms too, a record set by Pali in 2016. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current phenomenon

[edit]

El Niño or La Niña? Call me or if not, I'll check with the National Hurricane Center for part of the sea surface temperature. --Chris Bazán 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Fernández Bazán (talk • contribs)

Neither. We're in neutral ENSO. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulated Cyclone Energy

[edit]

Update the ACE index of Tropical Storm Aletta --Chris Bazán 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Fernández Bazán (talk • contribs)

Aletta - no damage or unknown

[edit]

Why do folks keep changing the damage in Aletta's row in the SE chart to unknown damage? The storm didn't affect any heavily populated places, it cause no confirmed impact, so none is appropriate. Unknown would work, and I'd argue that precedent favors this, for a storm that has confirmed, real impact (like say a death or two) but no actual monetary damage total. With a storm affecting Socorro Island, there's no damage reported 99% of the time (I only know of one instance of the contrary) and none associated with this storm, so none makes the most sense. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 named storms in June or not?

[edit]

Fabio formed as a depression on June 30, but was upgraded to a storm on July 1. Does this count as a named storm in June, breaking 1985’s record of five? Grammarguruguy (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grammarguruguy: It counts as a named storm in July, record remains tied for June. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you as I believe that when I edited it on July 1, it counted as a June storm as in my edit I stated that formed in June, not upgraded in June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:302:F880:EC0F:22B3:F740:8344 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him. It says FORMED in June, not NAMED in June. Brandoncyclone (Brandoncyclone) 19:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fabio was named in July so it counts as a July storm. This is how the NHC keeps track of named storms per month. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Hurricane Hector

[edit]

I know that Hurricane Hector has not made landfall yet, but I just wanted to let everyone know that I will have a draft ready in the next couple of days (as I have some time). If it does make landfall at hurricane strength or causes impacts in Hawaii, I will just move the draft over to an actual article. Please do not create an article at this time. Wait until the storm has made an impact. FigfiresSend me a message! 23:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this on my watchlist, I thought someone was explicitly thinking that an article should be made for it at this stage and was about to get agitated :P To be honest, if this lasts as long as I think it will, there'll be enough content for a stand alone article, regardless on Hawaii impact (which I don't think they'll be much). YE Pacific Hurricane 00:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I focused on the lead this evening here. The lead will be revised once it peaks. I will focus on the meteorological history later as that needs citations/references. Im guessing there will be hurricane watches/warnings issued in the coming days so there is a preps and impacts section for now. There may be impacts of some kind depending on how close Hector gets to Hawaii. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the future (and it matters less since this is a current storm but it matters a lot with past storms), it's generally a good idea to do the lead last, once you know all the details about the storm. Or at least do the MH portion of the lead after you do the MH and the impact portion of the lead after you do the impact. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yellow Evan: I have moved the draft to an actual article as it is now about 20% larger than what the Beryl article was after it dissipated the first time (excluding the current storm information, current storm infobox, and current weather event template). It will be able to exist as a stand alone article with the information that will be added in the coming hours and days. The MH section is fully up to date. FigfiresSend me a message! 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given I'm not a fan of the Beryl article, and that I'd never personally publish a 10kb article at this point in my wiki career, I think you jumped the gun a bit. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really jumped the gun. In 2017, Hurricane Irma was published at 2.7k bytes and Hurricane Maria was published at only 2.5k bytes. They only had 1 or 2 sentence meteorological history sections at that time. This has a much more substantial start to it. I figured it was time to let other people start contributing to the article. FigfiresSend me a message! 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irma and Maria were obviously going to be article worthy since it was clear both were going to be strong hurricanes that were going to threaten the entire Caribbean and be 30+ kb articles in. Can't say the same for Hector. To be fair this isn't the first time someone jumped the gun with a system like this and now that the article is made, I don't see an advantage in merging it for the time being as it is already decently up to date. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about those articles being published at such a small size without much information at all, not that they weren't going to be notable. We should be able to get a decent article fleshed out by the time the hurricane dissipates. The meteorological section will get a decent expansion in the coming days. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should also mention @CooperScience: is working on one as well. BTW, some models are taking Hector into the WPac a la Genevieve 2014 so the resulting article may be more of a MH-centered article (like Epsilon and Noru) compared to impacts (Kilo 2015 did a similar thing and i realize it still doesn’t have an article like kek). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the draft I made has been published and more information is being added to it. I have some stuff I am going to add to preps and impacts later today. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hector's new record! 90 freaking hours for three times!

[edit]

Incredible!... Hector surpassed 2015's Jimena for 84 hours. Hector arrives 90 f**king hours for three times as Category 4. He gots a new record like 2006's Ioke --🌟 LUZEKI 🌟 21:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed... however, we need a source stating that in order for it to be mentioned in the article. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update ACE

[edit]

Can someone please update the ACE? It is always outdated. Brandontracker talk 17:15, 12 August 2018

Hurricane Hector (2018) Merge Proposal

[edit]

I guess the better route to go down would be a merge proposal. To be honest, I don't feel Hector needs its own article any longer as it has little importance. Im quite certain it could easily be condensed. However, I will leave this up to you guys. I will not take an official stance on whether or not it should be merged. FigfiresSend me a message! 17:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose merging the articles, largely because Hector has broken duration and ACE accumulation records in the East Pacific, as well as being the storm with the longest Major Hurricane duration on record. Additionally, Hector has more than enough content for a separate article, so it should retain one of its own, similar to Hurricane Genevieve (2014). Merging the article into the seasonal article at this point, aside from all of the records, would make Hector's section excessively bloated. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I feel that the article's MH is very much bloated and could quite easily be cut down sufficently to avoid bloating out the section.Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If a tropical cyclone is notable for meteorological reasons, I think it's valid to keep an article for them as long there's enough info to make one, like Hurricane Genevieve (2014). ABC paulista (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not convinced that this TC is notable for meteorological reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should note to you it will become one of only a few storms that traversed all three Northern Pacific basins, and became the strongest in the CPac since Ioke, and in fact Hector came 5 mph short of being the first C5 in that region since then. Plus, as described above, it is a lengthy ACE producer and has been a major hurricane in the Pacific for the longest on record IIRC. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that it is also long-lived and long tracked, metrics that make Hurricane Dora (1999) notable too, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I personally see all of that as trivial since TC's are getting longer and longer due to climate change and global warming I also note that ACE is a very poor meteric to judge a systems notablity on since it has not been offically defined for any regions bar the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific and the North Indian Ocean which as a result, it will be not be possible to provide a full official estimate of its ACE. Also CPAC is just a subbasin of the EPAC imo just like Jakarta and PNG's AORs are considered to be subbasins of the Australian region. As a result it is only the strongest TC since Patricia in 2015 and not Ioke.Jason Rees (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The longer, the MH the more likely (and I'd be willing to bet cash money that there is a strong correlation between ACE and MH length in a TC article) it is to outgrow it's seasonal section. That's not trivial when it comes to whether a storm is article worthy. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jason Rees: The bit about TCs getting longer due to climate change and global warming is pure speculation and WP:OR because the studies about this subject shows no conclusive results on how the chages affect TCs tracks or duration. And ACE may not be officially applied by all basins, but we can still use it per manual calculation thanks to the JTWC and have proper comparisons/notability metric. It's a similar situation to the sustained winds metric, where the different scales make the comparisons difficult (but we can work it out), but the record sustained winds are still very notable and well regarded here. Also, if some TC passed trough both Jakarta's and Port Moresby's AORs it would be very notable beacuse the rarity of storms on their region, let alone one passing both. ABC paulista (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Acctually @ABC paulista: I dont think it is OR or Speculation to mention it in a talk page discussion like this since there are a lot of sources showing that TC's are becoming longer, more intense etc due to CC and GW. In fact I think I have even seen one or two sources from RSMCs accepting GW/CC as a factor in TC's. Also to calculate ACE ourselves using what is unofficial data is not on and is firmly OR and not covered by WP:Routine. But hey I don't care about Hector that much - I was just asked to contribute my opinion on it by @Figfires: which I have done. My opinion of Hector having an article is that it doesn't need one the same with most fish storms and nothing you say will make me change my mind.Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Jason Rees: GW/CC increasing TCs intensities, sure but that's not what is being questioned here. GW/CC increasing TCs longevities... Not so sure, since many researches found no significant changes on overall TC longevity, movement speed and travel capabilities, and the model projections are very spread about this with no consensus whatsoever. ABC paulista (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This storm will cross the Dateline and become a typhoon. Also, this storm is a big producer of ACE. Brandontracker (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally this takes place on the article talk page so I’m not sure why this was moved here, but let’s face it, only crabby old editors that are nostalgic for the past. Now, before I try my hand at cutting this down, let me ask the author what did you expect this storm to do that it did not do? YE Pacific Hurricane 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I expected Hector to have a larger impact on Hawaii than what it did. It had some impact, but nothing really notable. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. The storm was never much of a threat to Hawaii to begin with; a week out both the GFS and ECMWF had constiently being keeping the storm south of the islands. Just as an FYI, I don't know how long you've been following tropical cyclones, but Hawaii, due to its remote location and average forecast error and it position near a subtropical ridge, is immune to lots of semi-close misses like Hector. Now as for the article itself, I'm not convinced, even countering some of that cuts that have been made by others so far (I have my own version) that it could be cut back enough to where it should be merged. Keep at least for now. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - it is basically a slightly weaker Genevieve 2014. Though the MH is somewhat bloated I think we can cut/rewrite it down a tad bit to better fit the article, as merging it now just would inflate the section way too much even if it is cut down to the most simplest form, due to its long history (it formed July 31 and its now August 12). I think splitting the MH in the article into sections would also benefit it, like Genevieve. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Many Eastern Pacific storms rarely cause any impact on land but still remain valuable for meteorological reasons, and Hector is clearly one of them. Hurricane Ioke was mostly a "fish storm" during much of its lifetime, but it obviously deserves an article due to its longevity and intensity, same goes for Hurricane John (1994), Hurricane Emilia (1994) and many others. If land impact was the only "important" thing in EPAC storm articles, then none of these articles would be here today. CycloneYoris (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as Hector is likely to cross into WPac, a rare storm that existed in all three North Pacific basin. Also its long MH is worth having an article. --B dash (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons that B dash and CycloneYoris have stated. Hector is about to become the first system to exist in all basins of the Pacific since Genevieve in 2014, which makes it notable despite having little to no effect on land. Vida0007 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All basins of the Pacific,
  • Oppose, being a tri-basin crosser (probably safe enough to assume that it is one by now) and its several fluctuations in intensity make Hector's meteorological history long enough for an entire article. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a veteran tropical cyclone editor, I would like to respond to some of these arguments by telling you all to remember that we are not the hurricane Wikipedia and that any non-notable tropical cyclones are liable to go through the AFD process or be merged. Just like several heatwaves that have gone through the AFD process recently. I would also like to remind everyone that just because other stuff like Hurricane Ioke or Hurricane John exists it doesnt mean that they are notable or that this one should. In fact WP:Notability_(events) contains this line: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. I maybe wrong here but I dont consider a basin crosser that notable and nor do i consider the ACE or major hurricane records to be of historical significance. I also hate classifying the CPAC as a a speerate basin to the EPAC when its smaller than the average basin and just because some of the meteorology is different. We also do not classify Perth, Brisbane, Darwin and Jakarta as separate basins from Port Moresby or Wellington from Nadi. As a result, arguments like a system its notable because it existed in all three North Pacific basins dont wash with me, especially since a system moving from one basin to another happens a few times a year. I also feel that the MH for both Hector and Genevieve are bloated out and could quite easily fit inside a two-three paragraph section in the PHS as well as a paragraph in the PTS without breaching WP:Undue.Jason Rees (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on this article, but I don't think I've ever seen a successful cut request on a tropical storm (although redirection has happened in many instances). Probably because WP:EVENT does not override WP:GNG and it's difficult to claim that any recent hurricane would not meet it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be very surprised if every single recent hurricane passed WP:GNG and as an example, I would take Cyclone Cebile from earlier this year which has very few sources that are not affiliated with the subject by monitoring it.Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The reports of monitoring agencies have never been considered to be "affiliated" with hurricanes for the purposes of GNG, anymore than historians or scientists or news reporters (or any source, really) are considered to be "affiliated" with the subject they are researching/reporting on. That rule is there to keep conflict of interests and self-promotion in check, not for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Hector gained relative notability while approaching Hawaii and has an impressive meteorological history. Once the article is cleaned up it could be B-class. Grammarguruguy (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

[edit]

When is any one going to update the season maps for the pacific and the atlantic? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New unofficial system in Central Pacific

[edit]

I have noticed that there is a subtropical storm in the Central Pacific and it is nearing Alaska. Where can I get data for it and is it okay if I add a segment covering it? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Olivia Draft

[edit]

I just wanted to make ALL editors aware that I am currently writing a draft for Hurricane Olivia. I will be working on this draft over the next day before publishing it. In the meantime, I request that you do not prematurely create an article or start a draft of your own. If you want to contribute, simply contact me and ask for permission (as this is in my userspace). You may find the draft here. I hope to get this draft filled out and published in a timely manner. FigfiresSend me a message! 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E

[edit]

I think we all know that Td Nineteen-E formed.. However, I think that the pressure of 1002 mb makes not a tropical depression and a tropical storm. Any one else think that? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because there is no simple correlation between minimum pressure and windspeed. For one thing storm size also enters the equation and the advisories on the precursor did note an unusually large size, which would result in a lower windspeed for the same minimum pressure. Anyhow, if the NHC does not call it a storm I doubt we should. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19-E’s winds determine that if it is a TS or not. Since it’s winds did not reach 39 mph, it does not count as a tropical storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acyclonxe (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just seemed strange how its pressure was unusually low for a depression Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But it is not a storm. We will have to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acyclonxe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Rosa

[edit]

Hello everyone! I will be making a draft for Rosa today and likely will publish it on the weekend when the track is more accurate. FigfiresSend me a message! 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Walaka

[edit]

@Jasper Deng: Since Walaka has become a rare C5, I will be drafting an article for it right now. FigfiresSend me a message! 00:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: Draft may be found at Draft:Hurricane Walaka. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

[edit]

When will anyone update the season map for the Pacific season? Since the last update 4 tropical cyclones formed; 3 tropical storms; 3 hurricanes; and 3 major hurricanes plus a Category 5 (Walaka)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Sergio

[edit]

I will be working on a draft for Sergio this weekend and will likely publish in the monday-tuesday range. FigfiresSend me a message! 13:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


TD Twenty-three-E

[edit]

Should we count Guatemala as an affected area? Northatlantic320 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northatlantic320: Don't revert others' edits until this consensus is finished, please. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 18:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willa Draft

[edit]

I will likely make a draft for Willa tonight or tomorrow and publish on either Tuesday or Wednesday. FigfiresSend me a message! 21:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft may be found at Draft:Hurricane_Willa. FigfiresSend me a message! 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente

[edit]

Due to deaths from Vicente, I will be making a draft for Vicente right now and will publish as soon as the MH information is complete. FigfiresSend me a message! 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall Count

[edit]

In the season summary it states that there were six landfalls and did not include TD Nineteen-E. If your answer is that it wasn't notable as a tropical depression; Vincente made landfall as a tropical depression, is this a typo or intention by some ruleset? Thanks! Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19E was a tropical cyclone that made landfall. My guess is someone forgot about Olivia. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did include Olivia in the list; I counted seven landfalls and 19E was not including 19E. So, does that mean 2018 broke 1971's record for landfall count. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check out the best tracks here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/tws_pac_latest.gif Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven landfalls: Bud, Olivia (Hawaii), Nineteen-E, Rosa, Sergio (Twice over Baja California and Mexico), Willa. According to NHC best track, Vicente made landfall as a low and it is therefore not counted. AAnnoonnyymous (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John merge

[edit]

Tbh... I think it is best at this point to merge John into the season article. John's article already was minimal and with the removal of half the impact, I no longer think John is worthy of an article. FigfiresSend me a message! 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think twice before merging an article into one that is 130+ kb. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lane’s damage

[edit]

You know, Lane caused hundreds of millions dollars of damage, so, I think >100 million will be fine. But, I think you check Lane’s article here. Acyclonxe (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acyclone:, you can't use articles as a source. And Lane's damage in the article says "Unknown", so they are still trying to figure out the damage. Best to find a reliable source, or wait until the NHC issues a report on Lane's damage. 🐴sARENiceRide with 🐎 to my talk🐴 page 06:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that. I guess we have to wait a bit. Acyclonxe (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Some anonymous users had done some vandalism on 2018 Pacific Hurricane Season and Hurricane Hector.They should be reported if they keep causing Vandalism. Acyclonxe (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 2600:1700:3890:6970:0:0:0:41 and 2600:1700:3890:6970:49CC:B2BB:211D:F6CA is causing vandalism in 2018 Pacific hurricane season and 2018 Atlantic hurricane season. They should be reported if they keep doing that. Acyclonxe (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Fabio

[edit]

I will be creating a page called Hurricane Fabio this Thursday.I will see you there to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3890:6970:0:0:0:41 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you going to create it? Fabio had no impacts on land since it stayed away from land. It’s not notable enough to have its own article. Sandy14156 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I second that. Do not create an article on a storm that has no notability. Fabio was not an unusually strong storm, had no land impact, set no records, and had an average lifespan. That right there means it is not deserving of an article. FigfiresSend me a message! 19:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:3890:6970:0:0:0:41:Just if you’re aware,please keep your own hypothesis to yourself. You might have to read WP:CRYSTALBALL.You published your own hypothesis on 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season. Acyclonxe (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

Should we have an article for the tri-basin crossers? They are very important. Acyclonxe (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already have articles for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So something is wrong with my iPad so I have to create a new section. I searched for tri-basin crossers and no articles match that. Acyclonxe (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you talking about individual hurricanes such as Hurricane Hector (2018) or a general Tri-basin crossover article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about all tri-basin crossovers, not individual storms. Acyclonxe (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't have that article. Probably because they are not in and of itself notable. Is there some sourcing out there for such a topic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, so the article was deleted. Acyclonxe (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the Subtropical Cyclone

[edit]

Should the subtropical cyclone from Late August/Early September have it's own section as an unnamed subtropical storm? It came from Hurricane Lane's remnants and it did form into a subtropical storm (Even getting an eye) before falling apart. Charizard200 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It already has its own section. It is located in the "Other systems" section. That is enough coverage on it since it was never recognized officially. FigfiresSend me a message! 19:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACE record

[edit]

Just for clarification: I was comparing ACE values across both basins; wouldn't 2018 have the highest ACE value on record, not just in the Eastern Pacific basin, since the ACE for 1933 in the Atlantic (the previous record) was 259? Therefore, would 1933 be second-highest in ACE records, or are records separate for both basins? Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 19:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This season would indeed have the highest ACE between the North Atlantic and East Pacific, but since the Western Pacific regularly gets such high ACE (with many seasons having a higher ACE), I don't think such a record is that notable. — Iunetalk 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

[edit]

In the section Storm Names, in the last sentance (the one about the central basin), can you add "though only one name was used"? Please. 2601:401:C400:357:4966:10B0:24D9:EF49 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to add sources. Just add that only one Central Pacific name was used. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:558D:C8F1:1450:183B (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are need per WP:VERIFICATION. Without it, it would be likely that the addition would be removed right away. -INeedSupport- (Merry Christmas!) 04:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: There's no need to add a source for something so obvious. The naming list already indicates that only one name was used. CycloneYoris talk! 22:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 96C

[edit]

I propose that the image of 96C should be re-added back into the article. It's relevant to the "Other System" section. I know there's a lot of white-space, but that would mean we would have to remove PTC 10 from the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. If we have to reduce the white-space, I think we should reduce the size of the image. Would do you all think? -INeedSupport- (2019 Here We Come!) 00:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with removing PTC 10 from 2017 Atlantic as we dont always have images in the other storms section and I would personally prefer it to be a track map off all systems included in OS if an image is needed.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

[edit]

In 'season effects', Sergio's damage should be $402 million. 223.197.128.232 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018)

[edit]

The current article doesn't mention anything on the impact. Despite its proximity to land, the TCR also doesn't said anything on the impacts to land, just "probably" caused flooding to some areas. Regarding this, I see no strong reason to have an article for Carlotta. B dash (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some links on the talk page back when it was active IIRC... Given how long 2018 PHS is atm, I'd think twice before making it longer for now as well. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @B dash: There was an AfD discussion regarding Carlotta (One I started and ended) recently. I said that over the next couple of weeks, I would get a proper article ready for it as I found impacts. You can't trust the NHC to report all the impacts. There may be stuff out there that they didn't find. That being said, I don't think Carlotta should get a merger at this point. NoahTalk 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@B dash: I reworked the MH and lead... I am going to start on impacts tonight. It will be a multi day job. NoahTalk 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry for forgetting about this. Idai took my mind off it. I will work on the impact tonight and tomorrow. NoahTalk 21:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Through source-digging and good writing, something which Noah here has shown to be fluent with. There are plenty of sources available to create a decent-sized article from Carlotta, and its certainly been improved since its creation months ago. Cooper 22:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Prep

[edit]

@Hurricanehink: I went ahead and merged the content in. All mets are done now! I added a list of what has been done and what is left. NoahTalk 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Hurricane Noah! I expect another FA before long :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I haven't really overdone anything, have I? Should there be 2 para for Willa and Lane for impact/aftermath? I know preps aren't really a big deal here since they are mostly minor. NoahTalk 17:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make Hector just 3 paragraphs. I'd do just one paragraph for Willa and Lane's impacts and aftermath. Also, do you need to mention the unused CPAC names? Other than that, it looks in good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I will do that for Hector. I don't nessecarily agree with just a single paragraph as there are some important preps and records (ie the exodus of hundreds of thousands from coastal areas for Willa) as well. I think a prep/record + impact para and an aftermath para would be good for these two storms. As for the CPAC names, the standard appears to be inclusion even if they aren't used. NoahTalk 00:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can always change standard. Look at the WPAC, which similarly uses a rotating list. During the active season, the next few names are included, but afterward, the unused names are removed, since they'll just be used the next year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be wise because quite a few years would end up with no CPAC section. NoahTalk 00:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the names for this year, but something needs figured out the systemless years. NoahTalk 02:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I came up with a plan to include watches/warnings (just a very brief mention without specifics), evac of 200k, peak rainfall, damage total & town that was destroyed, deaths, 180k isolated, 100k homeless after/no potable water, and delayed gov't response/large aid. The bolded items need to be added. That should create a decent amount of text without going too overboard. NoahTalk 13:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. And for years that don't have CPAC storms, then they don't get a mention. I imagine there would be a mention in that season's summary that the CPHC handled responsibility for the CPAC, and storms are named sequentially, but there are several seasons where no storms are given a CPAC name. In fact, in the naming section, since there was only one storm, you could just mention that Walaka was the last name on the sequential naming list for the basin, which you'd then link to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section rewrites

[edit]
  • Lead  Done
  • Seasonal forecasts  Done
  • Seasonal summary  Done
  • Systems
  • Tropical Depression One-E  Done
  • Hurricane Aletta  Done
  • Hurricane Bud  Done
  • Tropical Storm Carlotta  Done
  • Tropical Storm Daniel  Done
  • Tropical Storm Emilia  Done
  • Hurricane Fabio  Done
  • Tropical Storm Gilma  Done
  • Tropical Depression Nine-E  Done
  • Hurricane Hector  Done
  • Tropical Storm Ileana  Done
  • Hurricane John  Done
  • Tropical Storm Kristy  Done
  • Hurricane Lane  Done
  • Hurricane Miriam  Done
  • Hurricane Norman  Done
  • Hurricane Olivia  Done
  • Tropical Storm Paul  Done
  • Tropical Depression Nineteen-E  Done
  • Hurricane Rosa  Done
  • Hurricane Sergio  Done
  • Hurricane Walaka  Done
  • Tropical Storm Tara  Done
  • Tropical Storm Vicente  Done
  • Hurricane Willa  Done
  • Tropical Storm Xavier  Done
  • Other systems  Done
  • Storm Names  Done
  • Season effects  Done

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 07:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]

ACR

[edit]

Since this is such a large and important season article, I would like to request an A-class review for it as well. NoahTalk 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricane Noah (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to review this, but I'll create the page for this. MarioJump83! 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I would like to put this on hold until after my two other noms finish. NoahTalk 18:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1196789607"