Talk:Hurricane Genevieve (2014)

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Article

This system so far has not impacted land or been very intense. Why can't we just add to the main season article? I would suggest that we wait before judging the article-worthiness of this storm. Dustin (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though it is unique in that it regenerated 2 times. I think it'll likely be article worthy soon if it gets strong near the dateline like the LGEM suggest, just now now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The models currently have it becoming a fairly significant typhoon in the WPac and heading toward Japan, which would be a very unique situation. If it turns out to be a flop, it can always be merged back in later. United States Man (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can always unmerge too. It is better to leave it in the season article until it outgrows its section. It's nicer that way than to have a really stubby article, in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that is fine. I'll just start a sandbox and unmerge if it becomes real strong later. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for considering. Dustin (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait for it intensify at least somewhat for re-creating. Models don't have a whole lot of skill in the CPAC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no point in having an article if it can all be easily contained in a section of the season page. Dustin (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just fixed it up yourself though :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was so clear that this could all fit in the season article that I just felt like leaving a little extra explanation behinf to prevent recreation of the stubby article. I like most articles, but there is no need to create an article so unnecessarily. If the section gets to large, then feel free to start an article, I say. Dustin (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just pointing it out before we get too merge happy. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is as rare as Ioke in 2006, Dora in 1999 and John in 1994, for its long track and impressive strength. I will finish this article. -- Meow 12:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody either has the valid claim to finish the article alone. Dustin (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 18:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the storm is over, we can properly assess it. I'm leaning slightly toward merging, since the content would be split across two articles. The bit about first EPAC hurricane becoming a typhoon since John is a bit misguided, since it treats CPAC is a special basin, even though it isn't really. The article goes into borderline excessive detail. Sure, it was a Super typhoon, but that doesn't mean it needs a 20 kb article. I could easily condense the info without omitting any information, so that it could be merged between the two season articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is intended by me to be a large MH-based article. I oppose such a merge as all of my contributions would be lost, and I can do far better than a season section. 90% of the typhoon section has yet to be written. Dustin (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point by merging? The article is done as it is. Last week, when the article was crappy, I'd agree, but to be honest, there are a few more mergeable articles than this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you add the super typhoon bit, I'd be a bit more convinced it should stay, fwiw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the hurricane part significantly, removing unnecessary and too detailed contents. The typhoon part will be done within a few days, then you will have a complete article. -- Meow 12:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to have some type of impact section?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 15:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so because Genevieve only had minimal if any impacts. Dustin (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really FA worthy?

Hello. I happened to recently stumble upon this article, and I noticed its quality rating is of FA-Class. Although that is definitely the quality I would love to see this article in the future, I don't feel it's an appropriate measure of it right now. Here's why:

For one, the lead fails to give a through summary of the article the reader is about to view. In other words, the lead gives rather obvious and trivial information about Genevieve to the reader that is not emphasized anywhere else in the article, some of which is even irrelevant and/or unfactual (e.g. "first time two category 5 typhoons were active in the [WPAC] since the 1997 season"; Halong was already below C5 intensity when Genevieve entered the WPAC).

Second, the MH section of the article looks like it needs plenty of work. To illustrate my point, the section abruptly stops describing Genevieve's path when it enters the WPAC. Well, what did it do there? Are we missing important information? How'd it weaken? I feel the article does not answer those questions, and it should be able to do so. And this isn't including the potentially unsourced facts hidden in the section.

And third, looking at the talk page, I notice that this article has apparently not passed an FA-Class evaluation, let alone a GA one. Has the article even been nominated for GA-Class? If it has, I would expect to see a link to the GA/FA assessment(s). Additionally, if, by chance, the article has passed the FA nomination, I don't see the banner anywhere on the main article.

I'll take care of a few problems I listed above. But I really don't think this article on Genevieve exemplifies the best work we have here, and there is more to be done. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 07:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a joke to me, so I have changed it to Start. I will begin to improve this article after my connection to Wikipedia gets recovered, so this article will be at least C. -- Meow 10:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am already actively working on the article, and I agree that there is no way this article should be FA-class. Dustin (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is not FA worthy. I'd give it start or C right now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, I'd consider it to be C class now, so I will update it. Dustin (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you are really making this article incorrect, too hurricane-specific, and unreadable. Please change your way of editing or immediately stop editing this article. -- Meow 14:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those details have all been verified, so they are most certainly not incorrect as you say. Dustin (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verified? If it were verified, why would you think that it dissipated on August 12 but is still active? -- Meow 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: I did not add those details; perhaps you removed them at the same time as the details I added, but I did not notice them? I made sure all of the info I added was sourced. Dustin (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and yes, that was just infobox information which I have not been messing with, so "you are really making this article incorrect" isn't really applicable to me, but rather to whoever was changing the value, assuming I understand you correctly. Dustin (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

Why is this mid? I had it low originally yet someone changed it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, you had best talk this out with Typhoon2013: Special:Diff/620869319 Dustin (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look...

...I know it may be overly specific at the moment, but first, I want to sort through my own work rather than have some editor remove well over half of it and two, this must be an MH-based article, so there is no point in having that as the sole header. Dustin (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ruining this article as your version is not welcomed by lots of members. Your version is totally based on much repeated and unnecessary information, but here is Wikipedia not a meteorological website. And why should it be your “MH-based”? Most of important weather events from Genevieve were west of the International Date Line. -- Meow 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't welcome you almost indiscriminately removing information that I have spent ages finding. Once I have finished all sorts of additions, then trimming down the article becomes useful, but considering that the storm had virtually no impacts, what else could it be but meteorological history-based? Dustin (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? More information does not mean anything, and I also spent much time on finding. Please stop taking Wikipedia as your playground. -- Meow 14:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT my playground. I already gave reasoning, and you don't own the article. I will go back and sort through the extra information relatively soon, but I won't permit you to remove about 12 out of 14kb I added without discussing to any degree. Dustin (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Enough with the accusations, lets just settle down and discuss the particular changes you were wanting to make, and why. The article has been like that for days already, so changes don't have to be made immediately. Like I said, I will go back through already added information and sort through it soon, but not only did you remove details, you removed sources. My plan? Well, at least it was... to first, write out the article (along with others) but not be too picky on the details because that slows down the time taken while you actually lay out the article... then... shave off irrelevant or unimportant extra details, but only after the main article including the typhoon section has been mostly written... then... go through, do rewording, perhaps add a few sources from places such as NASA or other... then, if we think the article is good enough, maybe we try to get B class. Dustin (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I was upset was that I didn't like the way you were very indiscriminate on the details. I would agree that many of the "deep convection" details could be removed, but some of these I still would find to be important. Dustin (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be good enough that most average readers can make sense of it but contain enough detail that someone more familiar with the subject can maintain interest and learn something. Dustin (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike your version on Genevieve, as readers cannot learn much because of the poorly-organized contents. I will give you time on finishing it, but it does not mean it will be edited by someone else in the future. -- Meow 15:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have decided that I won't wait, and I will try to remove some unhelpful details and reword some more important but hard-to-understand for the average reader details. You can and should add more typhoon details in the meantime, but please don't assume bad faith which I think you were doing earlier. Dustin (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin, you do not own articles. With that said, I don't think the timing was right to condense (although with these types of MH's articles, at some point, they should to some extent because it's easy to bloat these types of articles). Rather, the WPAC portion should be finished. And I highly disagree it's most important events were west of the dateline. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of owning articles, I have explained myself multiple times already, and I regard that as an insult. Ever hear of WP:BRD? I think we were done here until you made that comment. Dustin (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that you are a bit too attached to this article IMO. Is anyone here editing this article? Can I cut it down now then? (I won't cut too too much) Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That’s me, and I have cut 1/3 today. Yet he reverted all. -- Meow 15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course you can cut it down. The reason I disagreed with Meow was that she cut out 9 kb which was about 40% of the article. I was going to do it myself, but since you probably better know what to do with the "deep convection" parts, (the greatest issue although not the only issue in my opinion), do so. Also, there is this part where it says "After getting covered and exposed many times" which I don't understand. Dustin (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am cutting it down as we speak. Who is going to finish the WPAC portion of this article? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish the typhoon part tomorrow, but someone may want to revert all. -- Meow 15:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Dustin (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it? You are planing to write it all and revert all my edits. -- Meow 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We keep Dustin’s hurricane part but let it get revised by YE, and I will add the typhoon part tomorrow. Is this the latest consensus? -- Meow 16:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like you to take back that ridiculous statement you made "you are planing to write it all and revert all my edits". How many additions of yours can you actually say I reverted? Also, anyone can add, whether it be Typhoon2013 or some other editor on this article, so long as the edit is sourced and preferably no more deep convection material as I KNOW I added too much of. I will try to find some alternative sources of a sort which has not been used, and perhaps I will add them on the talk page. Dustin (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meow, yes, that is the latest consensus and likely satisfies all parties. I trimmed it down to more reasonable length now (about 3kb less than it was). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still too many unnecessary contents like forecasting to be a TS, for the U.S. interests, etc.. -- Meow 16:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with including forecasting information? That would be part of the meteorological history I believe. Dustin (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a storm were forecasted to be a hurricane but ultimately remained a tropical storm, the forecasting would be useful for an article. However, Genevieve really became a tropical storm, why should readers get the similar contents twice? -- Meow 17:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed somewhat. I know what line you're talking about. I put it in the wrong place sorta. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it is not necessary to show the intensity many times when a storm only intensifies or weakens a little. -- Meow 17:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one instance of this. I do think it's important to note changes from TS to TD status though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not explaining much... I meant maximum sustained winds. -- Meow 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JMA’s pressure dropping

We should not consider JMA’s significant pressure dropping from 945 to 915 hPa as an explosive intensification, because both of the size and winds did not increase. That was possibly a fix of pressure only. -- Meow 14:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To bad that the JMA doesn't have discussions like the NHC and CPHC... perhaps if you quickly compare what the JTWC saw in terms of pressure drop to see if the JTWC too saw a rapid drop? I know the JTWC is unofficial, but it is reliable, so it should help here. Dustin (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Meow on this one. The timing of that pressure drop was when Genevieve was assessed as Category 5, and it appears to be an adjustment rather than intensification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Remember Dvorak in the WPAC has lower pressures than Dvorak in the EPAC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin V. S.: The Joint Typhoon Warning Center often uses its wind-pressure conversion chart, so 140kt would be converted to 918hPa (since 2007). -- Meow 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply; I had to go somewhere. Thanks for the explanation. Dustin (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissipation

I do not understand why some people continue changing the date of dissipation to August 15 and calling it becoming extratropical. The Japan Meteorological Agency indicated that Genevieve had dissipated as a tropical depression at 12Z on August 14, so the official date of dissipation is August 14. As it officially dissipated before crossing the International Date Line, data from the Ocean Prediction Center is unofficial in this situation. -- Meow 06:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the JMA classified a developing low at the same place as Genevieve after it dissipated, but they never said it was the same system. This is just for clarification. Krit-tonkla ^talk 10:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same place? The new low formed about over 1,000 km west-northwest of the last position of TD Genevieve. -- Meow 17:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve dissipated on August 15. The Ocean Prediction Center has a bulletin that states this on its website (see this link). Now, since we have a source for this, please stop changing it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is originally investigated by myself, so I am aware of what I am doing. OPC is unofficial in this case that we should not use it for the date of dissipation. Moreover, neither JMA nor OPC used “remnant low” for Genevieve at all, so please do not mislead readers anymore. -- Meow 12:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The important here is to verify if the time of Genevieve's dissipation in OPC's bulletin contradicts what JMA states. We always have to give preference to official sources over other ones, but we can use both if they don't give us different information over the same subject. ABC paulista (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the JMA to issue its BT in a few weeks time. If they indicate that Genevieve went through an extratropical transition and reports that it has exited the region before dissipating then we will use the OPC/NOAA's operational data. However if they indicate it dissipated while within the Western Pacific we have no option but to use the JMA information.Jason Rees (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But someone just cannot wait— keeping reverting and calling it a “remnant low”. JMA never uses this term. -- Meow 22:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the BT and the JMA say it dissipated at "AUG1412UTC", as a result i propose that this is the date that we have to accept for the dissipation and ignore anything that the OPC said about the system after that time.Jason Rees (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the dissipation date. I don't see a harm in including the OPC data though as remnants though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve strongest NPAC?

Idk why this is an issue. We go by pressure for peak intensity/records, not winds. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10-min sustained winds are proper in this case. It does not mean that Marie is the strongest— they are not comparable with the similar strength in different basins under different standards. -- Meow 19:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, we go for smallest pressure to determine TCs intensity, and only use strongest winds as a tiebreaker. That's how the RMSCs normally go too.

Also, opposite to winds, pressures are comparable everywhere.ABC paulista (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Genevieve and Halong were 915mbar, and we use pressure for most intense, I think tied is the best solution. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Genevieve had stronger winds, winning the tiebreak. So Genevieve > Halong (same pressure, same 1-min winds, stronger 10-min winds), and Genevieve > Halong > Marie (smaller pressure). ABC paulista (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ABC paulista. If the pressure is tied, then the winds should be the tiebreaker. If both are tied, then the intensity is tied. United States Man (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan as a hurricane and typhoon

I saw some people reclaimed that Genevieve was a long-lasting hurricane, or Genevieve was typhoon only for a while. Why not checking information before providing those incorrect contents? Genevieve only remained 12 hours as a hurricane, but later it lasted as a typhoon with 78 hours— over six times longer. -- Meow 03:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they want to say is that Genevieve was a long-lasting tropical cyclone. Krit-tonkla ^talk 14:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Genevieve was a long-lived storm overall. "Long-lasting hurricane" was kinda misleading, but Genevieve was long-lived nonetheless. ABC paulista (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]