Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Tropical Cyclone Naming (Topic)

Hi @Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Juliancolton, Typhoon2013, and Meow: @Supportstorm, ABC paulista, Inks.LWC, and Thegreatdr:, So Hink and I were talking via Facebook about the Tropical Cyclone naming topic, since i am approaching the end point of the tropical cyclone naming article. As a result we wonder if it would be better if Tropical Cyclone Naming became The history of tropical cyclone naming and Lists of tropical cyclone names became tropical cyclone naming. I also personally feel that List of historical tropical cyclone names would be better if it was strictly restricted just to the historical names and X amount of current names rahter than having ATL, EPAC and PAGASA at 2019 and the rest at some random point. Any thoughts are welcome as always - especially from people who i havent pinged.Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that JR and I had this conversation, and I agree completely on the articles moving. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Ok wait. So you are saying that the article: Tropical cyclone naming shall be removed or moved? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That article should be moved to History of tropical cyclone naming, and the current article on Lists of tropical cyclone names should be moved to tropical cyclone naming. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems to make sense and is fine with me. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Ok. I am fine with the article moving to "History of tropical cyclone naming". But why move the current article of List of tropical cyclone names? I like it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Although are you going to remove all the "future" names of tropical cyclones? I like those tables as well. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Because it is a better title for the content it covers and I have suggested that we remove the future names from the List of Historical tropical cyclone names since it seems to breach WP:Crystal and WP:Original Research by suggesting that the name Pam could be used this year.Jason Rees (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the argument that including future names is a per se breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Granted, we have to be careful how we word it, and if we said, "Here is the list of future storms...", that would be problematic, but a list of verifiable, tentative names is more than that. such a list is more than just a prediction, speculation, etc.; it's a verifiable fact that, as of right now, the names on the rotation are blah, blah blah. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's not quite OR, but it can be if you don't word is properly. I do agree that future names should not be on the historic names page, though for a different reason, it's not relevant. Future names should be one of the naming pages though. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
And if we're going to move the current article on TCN, we might as well find something to replace it with. Axe the future names on the historical page and move the current TC naming list to just TCN. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of retired Pacific typhoon names

Alright, this is all done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks can we get the (JMA) dropped from List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)? Jason Rees (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose until/unless the JTWC names get added and with a good source. Once that happens, I'd be happy to move it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye guys!

@Jason Rees:, @Hurricanehink:, @Keith Edkins:, @Meow: and other users I haven't mentioned or possibly anon users who wanted to help, I just wanted to say as it is in the title: Keep an eye guys. This is because me and @Jasper Deng: have found 4 sockpuppet user thing from the old Instalok. I know it is hard and bad for us, but this is more serious! He had vandalized some of our tropical cyclone pages since Christmas 2014 and he is still continuing until today but different accounts. We never know if Instalok has a new hidden account here somewhere as well. I should probably say that if we create a "schedule" for editing and browsing news in Wikipedia. Who has a plan or does anyone agree or disagree? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Btw as well, if you spot a user who edits with bad grammar tell me or Jasper Deng including username. Also look for weird and "close" Usernames as well since Instalok made a name which is close to my username: Typhoon2015 and close to @Supportstorm:'s username: Support the storm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Chill. If you have any suspicions about sockpuppets of him, please file them at WP:SPI. Since you heavily edit his topic (tropical cyclones), he should be easy to spot. Do note that CheckUser isn't for fishing and that without specific usernames to accuse, we can't do anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I think creating a schedule to be on Instalok Watch seems a bit excessive. If you see his vandalism, revert it and take it to SPI. Other than that, it's not something I'd worry about too much. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. But it's just that this is too much from him and I thought that if he does this again and creates another account or something. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Don't be that afraid. You know what to do, there's no need for us to do anything more than what we're doing now. He was noticed pretty quickly each time, there's no need to increase our watch of him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Please look at edits of Disco Cisco, just in case. Wording sections are similar to Instalok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wording sections? What do you mean? Also, this user appears to actually be updating images rather than replacing them with low-resolution copies. Dustin (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Again, if you have sufficient reason to suspect a sock, please go to WP:SPI. In this case, I'd say it's a bit too early to tell.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Geostationary Satellite Imagery

Recently users have been uploading and updating cyclone articles with geostationary images provided by the NRL. To avoid clutter in the commons I suggest we have a single file that gets updated in the same fashion as the track file does. Obviously imagery from other satellites like MODIS would be uploaded as separate files for the infobox and article after the storm has dissipated. One concern I have would be trying to get users on board if this were implemented. Supportstorm (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you handle this when there is more than one image per storm? Some have several images. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
What I envisioned was a file that was only updated through images from the previously listed source. Users would upload an updated image when it becomes available. Other sources or different satellites (ex:MODIS, VIIRS) would have separate files like what has always been done. After the storm is finished the file would be replaced. This is mainly for when a cyclone is active. Hopefully, if done right, would allow the most current image to be presented in the articles without having to constantly replace it. Might be a great help for standardizing among the different language Wikis as well. Supportstorm (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do some seasons' articles have a section titled "Seasonal summary" while others have a section titled "Season summary"?

I do not understand why this inconsistency exists between the many different seasons' articles for the world. Dustin (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont know why it exists either but i would suggest that Seasonal summary makes more sense and ties in with seasonal forecasts.Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
By accident. I like to keep if seasonal predictions and summary separate, but otherwise, I agree with JR. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
By mistake? If true, it is strange that such an error only seems to persist in certain basins' seasons' articles, like the typhoon season. Dustin (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe then its my fault since some the things i implement in JTWC AOR, so to speak may not get replicated in NHC AOR since i don't edit the region.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true as well. Tbh I don't see this being a huge deal. I'd still prefer "Seasonal summary" though. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata properties

Interestingly enough, we do not yet have Wikidata properties for things like maximum sustained winds, Saffir–Simpson category, etc. I just want to get the ball rolling on what properties we should request. See wikidata:Wikidata:Properties for context.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change the project's main image

Typhoon Maysak from the ISS on March 31

After nearly 12 years, Hurricane Isabel's iconic image from the International Space Station has been surpassed. On March 31, 2015, the ISS passed almost directly over Typhoon Maysak with jaw-dropping results. Of the hundreds of images taken by the astronauts aboard, this particular one stands out as the best. I've already had some discussion off-wiki about this with the general consensus being to add it. Just wanted to make this formal before actually making a project-wide change like this. This change will affect all talk pages and the main tropical cyclone pages where Isabel's image was previously present (with some possible exceptions). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a problem with this. The project could use a slightly new look.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have copied part of the main template but with the new image here. Dustin (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Maysak looks a bit small; it might do well to either create a slightly cropped image intended solely for use in the WikiProject banner, or perhaps the image size can be set to something higher than 48px. Dustin (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Try increasing the size, Dustin. Juliancolton suggested to me that I increase the size to 70, which makes a huge difference and looks great. Don't worry about the blank space, either, as we always have the assessment stuff underneath. I like it, CB, I support the change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried that in my sandbox, and it looks great. This idea is good to go. Dustin (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support the proposed update with a somewhat bigger thumbnail size in the project banner (70px worked well for me, as noted above). My rationale is that it looks more cooler. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - I agree; I like the fact that you get the whole cyclone instead just the center section. I also agree with Juliancolton that 70px works well. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Looks pretty slick. OK, time for the objections. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Winds in infobox

I just noticed something in my current FAC. For Northern Indian Ocean storms, it's listed as 3-minute winds and 1-minute winds, but that isn't very helpful. There are times where the 3-minute winds are higher than the 1-minute, as with 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone, and it's not unheard of for WPAC, with 10-minute winds higher from JMA than 1-minute winds from JTWC. Rather than potentially confusing the readers, should we perhaps list something like the warning center? Like: 

IMD estimate
140 km/h (85 mph 3-minute sustained)
JTWC estimate
110 km/h (70 mph 1-minute sustained)

Likewise, it would be JMA vs. JTWC. I know some on here might question why we list JTWC, but they're still the largest unofficial agency in the world, the most well-known, covers the most territory of any agency when issuing warnings. Please don't make this discussion about whether or not to include JTWC, just feedback on how we handle the winds in the infobox. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I was the reviewer who asked about this -- to be honest I was sure it was an error when I saw the 3-minute estimate was higher than the 1-minute. I was amazed when I learned it was correct. I think non-storm-aficionados are going to be baffled by this; something like the format Hurricanehink suggests above would be a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I am amazed that you picked up on it and realised that 3-minute winds are normally lower than 1-min winds and would love to know what made you pick up on it. That aside i think the proposal could work but we need to work out several details including which warning centres to include and how (Eg: Do Rota, Spain and Morocco count). It would also be interesting to get a reanalysis field in there.Jason Rees (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's just that I have a maths background, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I glanced at the infobox and saw the 3-minute and 1-minute numbers, and immediately wondered why the numbers were the way they were -- I guess what went through my head was that any 3-minute number must have included a 1-minute period of at least the same winds as the 3-minute number, so the 1-minute period would have to be higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, could someone be confused about there being such a large gasp between the JMA and JTWC winds? This argument goes both ways. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Replying to @Jason Rees:, I think it's silly to talk about Spain and Morocco when their one single warning has since become part of the NHC database, so all of Atlantic and EPAC would fall under NHC. Likewise, even though JMA might not have been around then, their BT database goes to 1951, so we would use them going back to that point. Likewise, JTWC has data back to 1945 in their best track, even though it might not have been called that, so we would just use their label going back to that. No need to make it more complicated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This proposal is good, this is something I remember thinking about occasionally in the past. Although maybe we could move the 3-min/1-min estimate text from the winds themselves to the warning center line? — Iune(talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane FAR

I have nominated 1928 Okeechobee hurricane for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC))

PAGASA only-named storms with JTWC designations

Hi. Somehow Jason Rees says that we should state Caloy instead of 04W (Caloy) and Karding instead of 14W (Karding) for the 2014 PTS season article because some sort of confusion to people. I disagree on this one because for me it's kind of confusing that if we only state the PAGASA name for a storm without a JTWC designation even though the infobox states that the JTWC had warned on it. Also I would rather copy storms like this in the past seasons like 2009's 24W (Tino) and 2013's 30W (Wilma). What do you guys think about this? Because if Jason Rees is right, then I should do the same to the past seasons. It's hard to explain but I hope you guys understand what I'm saying here. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How is the average reader who knows nothing about tropical cyclones meant to distingish a PAGASA name and a JTWC designation? There not going to be able to which is why i think it is rather redundant we go 24W (Tino) or 30W (Wilma) rather than Wilma. I am also seriously wondering if we should go a bit more crazy and standardize how we deal with alternative names across the world. Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: If the reader is a filipino, they should know what PAGASA is but I don't know if people around the world know what the JTWC is. Yes we should standardize how we deal with alternative names until we think that the reader is not or less confused. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: That is precisely why we shouldn't be using the JTWC numbers for section titles unless we are left with no choice.Jason Rees (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't we reverse the order of designation? Ex: Caloy (04W) I think the JTWC ID should still be there just not the main identification for the storm. Supportstorm (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
But why do we need the JTWC ID in the section title? In my view it just adds bytes that we do not need and while its only a few extra bytes every little helps to get the article to a manageable size.Jason Rees (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The extra bytes is very minimal. I agree with Supportstorm's proposal. The JTWC's numbering scheme is well known in the American meteorology world, and this is the English Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: I agree. But I think it's a little bit awkward, but I think it'll do. But one question: When you said reverse the order of the designation, are you saying only to the PAGASA named storms or does it apply to all storms (even named by JMA and possibly crossover storms)? Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I suggest only doing this with PAGASA names and JTWC numbers. Supportstorm (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: Ok. So what now? Do we do what Supportstorm says right now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit late but wouldn't it be confusing to have JMA name (PAGASA name) for officially named storms, PAGASA name (JTWC designation) for PAGASA named storms and JTWC designation for others? Krit-tonkla talk 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally i think it would be great to see Typhoon Fengshen-Frank rather than Typhoon Fengshen (Frank) which would provide us with a standardisation of the alternative names that i was on about earlier. Jason Rees (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Krit-tonkla: @Jason Rees: It would be kind of confusing about that but I personally think that doing it with brackets is more easier instead of dashes. Also I recommend not using dashes for these because what about the double named storms like Ken-Lola (unless we use a slash for that storm)? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok. @Supportstorm:, @Jason Rees:, @Krit-tonkla: I created this just for you guys to see for my opinion: User:Typhoon2013/Extra Sandbox. I put 3 storms there and did a sample of what was I thinking of with PAGASA named storms with JTWC-only designated storms and JMA Names. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The dash is more professional looking than any of those examples and we could still use it for three names or more like Katrina-Victor-Cindy does. I do not like your proposal Typhoon2013 as it jsut looks tatty and would not be able to be tied in with the MoS rules.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like Supportstorm's proposal. I don't like the dash, because it is problematic and leads to ambiguity when we have double named storms like Typhoon2013 said. If we don't go with Supportstorm's proposal, I would go with Jason's original proposal. I absolutely don't like using Typhoon2013's original proposal, as it is redundant and looks tacky to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: @Inks.LWC: Ok, but I was just trying to help but that wasn't my idea really and I copied that idea from the zh wikipedia. Yes I would rather go for Supportstorm's idea since it is the only choice we have have instead of the other dumb opinions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. I was talking about what you proposed in the original post (and is used for Tino and Wilma). Apparently (as you claim... I haven't verified this, but I have no reason to doubt you), it is the status quo. I still think it looks awkward. Not sure if that's what you were referring to as a "dumb opinion", but that's the one I was talking about. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: I think the way in your sandbox is ok, especially because it is clear which name is JMA and which name is PAGASA. So looks like we are left with this and Supportstorm's idea. Krit-tonkla talk 09:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I still feel that the option I proposed is relevant and the best option to go for. There is no real need for the JTWC designation in the title of the section. As a result I personally reject Hinks idea of it being used just because its well-known about in US Met Circles which isn't too much of surprise since its the US DOD designation. I have been talking to the IBTRACS project and have been informed that they would be open to including them and that the only reason, that they are not included is because they have no BT Data from PAGASA. I am not sure I follow the argument that we would have ambiguity over who named the system if we were to do it in dashes. I say this since in every summary we generally note when a system is named and by whom, while in the PTS seasons we also have the naming section down below which is another thing I hate but can understand the need to see it there since PAGASA has annual lists.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Ok. So you are saying that we either do storms without JTWC designations or do dashes? If I was to choose from those two, I would rather go with storms without JTWC designations. Also I was thinking if we could do that with the userbox saying 10-min winds (PAGASA) instead of 10-min winds (JMA), to make it easier for people to understand what PAGASA is and to make it less confusion to them because obviously nowadays when JMA classifies a storm will be named from the normal WPac naming list. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that we do dashes for all names and do not include the JTWC designation in the title for the reasons outlined above. Also there is only one time when we need to swap 10-min winds (JMA) for 10-min winds (PAGASA) and thats when the JMA doesnt warn on a system that PAGASA does.Jason Rees (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I suggest that we don't do dashes. What if, for example, Ken-Lola got a PAGASA name? It would be confusing. Omitting JTWC designation is ok, though I personally think including it would be better. Krit-tonkla talk 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
1) Doing dashes would bring the WPAC in line with how we handle alternative names across the world. (eg: SWIO) 2) I dont agree that is or that it would be confusing to have Ken-Lola-PAGASA Name especially since we have Katrina-Victor-Cindy, and we generally mention the PAGASA names in both the summary and other places in the seasonal article.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I would rather do the usual like including the JTWC designation or your first idea which is just the PAGASA name. Because what if the naming system in the WPac change in the future? For example what if there will be three names in the future: JMA, PAGASA and some agency? How about I'll tell the other users about this topic like Meow and Hurricanehik etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Again I do not see any confusion since we would note them in the systems blurb.Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Are you sure? There are storms in the WPac which are named Fung-wong, Son-Tinh and even Chan-hom the next storm with a dash. Because if we are going to confirm that we are going to use dashes, I would rather do something like this since there are two types of dashes (the long and the short): Fung-wong—Igme, Ma-on—Ineng etc. You should keep in note with that as well before making your move. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Name/xxW? -- Meow 03:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Jason has swayed me to his side on this. To be grammatically correct, an en dash would be used between the two storm names. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Inks.LWC: Did you see my latest message above about the 2 different dashes, though? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hence my comment that an en dash would be the proper type of dash to use. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Meow: Thanks for the idea! How come no one thought about that: using slashes? @Jason Rees: Can't we use slashes and they are kind of similar to dashes, right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Dashes would be better and look more professional imo than slashes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with @Jason Rees: on this. Though, I would like to bring User:Typhoon2013/Extra Sandbox up for considering (again) because I haven't seen anyone considering it and it has several pros. (I promise I wouldn't bring it up more.)
* Clear and easy to know which names are PAGASA names.
* Get to use JTWC designations.
* Don't use two different confusing kinds of dashes.
* The same way as in Chinese wikipedia.
Thanks. (I can't seem to get the bullets on an indent, so an asterisk is probably ok.) Krit-tonkla talk 14:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use two different types of dashes, and we shouldn't use slashes in the titles either. I think we should keep PAGASA names as "Tropical Depression Caloy", or whatever, when it is only PAGASA named. I don't think the names are widely used enough that they should have combined listing with the JMA names, which are official and are the international names. What's wrong with how we've been doing it for years? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Hink. I'm mostly a progressive kind of guy, but I don't agree with the dash option and I haven't been impressed by any other suggestion. Supportstorm (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I would rather stick to the normal just like the past years. But @Hurricanehink: do you think if it's an only PAGASA name storm with a JTWC designation, we coming both like 04W (Caloy) or just Caloy itself even though there is a JTWC designation? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't include the JTWC number. It's fairly unlikely that a PAGASA storm doesn't get officially named but is still numbered by JTWC, since we're only talking about storms post-2000. As most of these are short-lived, I think we should do the same thing in other basins, and just create an "Other storms" section, as we have for 2014 PTS. We're only talking about 15 since 2000 that currently have their own section, many of which could be part of an "other storms" section. As it stands, there are more PAGASA depressions that weren't named/numbered by either JTWC/JMA than PAGASA depressions just numbered by JTWC. I don't think they should be treated from other PAGASA depressions not named by JMA, so all of them should just be "Tropical Depression Caloy", in the event the section has enough material to warrant being separate from "Other storms". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Ok, but just in case the reader is confused that it is a JTWC designated storm as well, we need to state in its information that it was designated by the JTWC clearly. For example: On March 22, the system was designated as 04W by the JTWC. So yes, I agree with you. @Jason Rees: So what now? Is it now confirmed for all these information we've shared out? Should I or you guys start the new thing from the 1963 season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Japan Meteorological Agency's Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale

@Netoholic: If there was a discussion here about it, please do link me (I couldn't find anything in the archives of this talk page). It begs the question of whether we should adopt the unofficial subdivisions of the typhoon category that the JMA uses for its own purposes, or just continue to use the typhoon category by itself. My opinion is that it would be more helpful to readers if we used the subdivisions ("strong", "very strong", and "violent") as if they were separate categories (i.e. different colors for them in infoboxes, etc.) because as-is, the whole typhoon category spans an extremely large range of intensities, and in the season summary tables and timelines, typhoons of different intensity are not visually differentiated amongst each other, making readers look at the numbers directly (which isn't the case with other basins). On the other hand, should we choose to singularly use the typhoon category as we do now, then we need to delete the upper bound on typhoons in this template.

I do know it would be a lot of work to devise new colors, update templates, etc., but our ultimate goal is to serve our readers in the clearest fashion possible. As for a color scheme I would suggest that, with five levels above depression (tropical storm, severe tropical storm, and then the three types of typhoon), and their similarity to the Australian scale, we would then use the same coloring as we use with the Australian scale.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While it's on their scale, I've never seen the JMA use the typhoon subdivisions in any of their operational products... if you look at their best track data, the storm categories included do not have the subdivisions. — Iune(talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the link to the guide for the best track data from the JMA: http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/Besttracks/e_format_bst.html — Iune(talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, looking at Digital Typhoon (which seems to be a reliable resource for JMA data/history), I found this:

Before 2000, JMA has been using additional typhoon classes for intensity and size. The intensity class had "weak" (which corresponds to Tropical Storm) and "middle" (which corresponds to Severe Tropical Storm), and the size class had "very small," "small," and "middle." These classes, however, might have given unreasonable relief to the people's attitude, such as "this typhoon is OK because it's very small and weak."

In addition, these typhoon classes were regarded as one reason for a big accident at a river on 1999, when a weak tropical depression caused heavy rain resulted in more than 10 people died of increased water level. Difference between typhoons and tropical depressions is only in terms of winds, and it has nothing to do with rains, but the expression of "weak" might have given different impression for preparedness. Based on this reflection, these classes are removed after 2000.

— Iune(talk) 03:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They do use them in their web interface for advisories ([1]; for example at this time Dolphin is forecast to be "strong" when it reaches typhoon status); I'm not bothered by them not being included in track files because NOAA doesn't include categories in their (best) track files either as far as I can tell, merely listing wind, pressure, and other non-discrete quantitative data. In terms of how the public perceived the finer categories, that seems to be the same as the debate over the SSHWS. Furthermore, the particular problem outlined here no longer applies because the JMA now only uses "strong" and up. Also, this year's best track file has no categories whatsoever, only numbers and names (not even "typhoon", "severe tropical storm", etc.).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And per the WMO manual (see page 38) the scale is technically still current. One thing though is that unlike the NHC, the JMA doesn't keep an archive of its web advisories, and thus not of the subcategories, although they can still be determined exactly using the wind bounds. Another thing is that the single typhoon category is the "international" one, and the subdivided one the "Japan" scale, although the JMA is the RSMC and we can trust and take whatever they place on the public webpage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The way I have often thought of this is that the JMA as the RSMC for the Typhoon Committee is using the Typhoon Committee's scale for the formal advisories and best track data. However, on their website and in other places which I know @Meow: can and will elaborate on they do use their own extended scale. Personally i feel that its better we use the Typhoon Committee scale rather than have any verification issues surrounding the use of the extended scale. It is also worth noting that the JMA BT file uses the Typhoon Committee categories - its just in the form of a code (1-9) based on the various intensities.Jason Rees (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no verifiability problem because the scale is mathematically precisely defined. That's why we can immediately infer "Category 5" when we see 1-minute winds of 140+ kt from the JTWC without waiting for external sites to say the same, for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I will also note that we use "JMA scale" rather than "Typhoon Committee scale" in our infoboxes after "Typhoon" or "Severe Tropical Storm" etc.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Japan Meteorological Agency does use “strong, very strong and violent” in the Japanese best track data. -- Meow 13:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'Current Infobox' removal and information for future storms

Hi. Yes we do need the current infobox up if there is a current storm system. However the problem is the removal of it. Lately since the 'near-dissipation' of Maysak, I've been continuing the rule of: removing current infoboxes when a storm is nearly dissipating or when the JTWC made its final warning only in the WPac basin, and somehow @Jasper Deng: has been reverting me and declares that to remove the current infobox when JMA stops warning on it. Now it's been happening again with Noul and Dolphin. Last year, I had the same problem has Jasper when @Meow: removed the current infobox before the dissipation of Rammasun, so we made an agreement that to remove it after the JTWC made its final warning, I'm pretty sure. Could somebody help? We can change the rule of the current infobox or do the same way. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My reason for disputing this practice is that JTWC is not the RSMC; if a TC is a TC according to the RSMC then it counts. In the case of Noul and Dolphin, the JTWC stopped warnings hours before the JMA followed suite. Either way, data files such as this continue to be updated for a bit of time after the final warning, especially if the warning said "becoming extratropical" rather than outright "extratropical". I understand this if it had basically become a remnant low with less than 30 kt winds, but the JMA still has Dolphin as a significant TC for many hours after the final JTWC warning.
Also, for transparency, I had asked about this in #wiki-hurricanes on freenode. I didn't get anyone in the channel explicitly supporting this practice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Why remove it when the JTWC issues it's final warning? That hasn't been explained. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Joint Typhoon Warning Center issues a final warning when a tropical cyclone shows no threat to the U.S. Military. It does not mean that it is no longer a tropical cyclone. -- Meow 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So why are we removing the current infobox when the JTWC issues its final warning then?--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: This is just for storms in the PTS articles. @Meow: and @Jasper Deng: How about we remove it when the JMA downgrades it to a tropical depression? It's more easier since when a TC weakens to a TD, then its more likely to dissipate, unless for the JTWC and PAGASA agencies. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say we keep the infobox as long as the JMA keeps reporting winds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So many people rely on information only from the JTWC. However, I only add or remove that infobox based on RSMC Tokyo. -- Meow 13:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Add the infobox if an agency is reporting on it, correct? So this is what we are doing in future storms. @Meow: @Jasper Deng: However what if only PAGASA is tracking it? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the RSMC only.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding ACE predictions to forecast tables

As I'm updating the 2015 season forecast table, the thought occurred to me that it might be nice to also include ACE index forecasts in that table, in addition to the numbers for named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. We mention it in the text, but I think it would be nice to have it in the table to easily compare the predictions from various sources. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

NOAA (CPC & NHC) season forecasts in forecast table

Apparently there are a few different preferences for how we label the seasonal forecasts put out by the the CPC in collaboration with the NHC in the "Source" column for the "Predictions of tropical activity" tables in the seasonal articles. From a brief skim of recent articles, it appears that "NOAA" has been the popular label for Atlantic season articles and older Pacific season articles, but that in recent years, a preference for "CPC" or "CPC, NHC" has developed for Pacific season articles. I haven't yet formed an opinion as to which I prefer, but I figured I'd try to get the ball rolling to establish project-wide consensus (we might as well use the same label for virtually the same project. Here are the options I see as most plausible:

  • Option A - NOAA
  • Option B - CPC
  • Option C - CPC, NHC
  • Option D - NOAA (CPC)
  • Option E - NOAA (CPC, NHC)

Those seem like the best options, but feel free to propose others if there is something better. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on what we'd like to use. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it more useful to go with option E. If the past predictions were created by NOAA without detail as to which branch of the organization created it, I suggest keeping it linear throughout the project. Supportstorm (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about map images to track data

Recently one of my track maps was removed from the article of Typhoon Cobra. The reason stated was that tracks created from the historical weather maps were not considered credible. I've been doing this to a few tracks of Pacific typhoons with extended extra-tropical tracks from the Mariner's Log and NOAA OPC. I was wondering if it is considered original research to transcribe data that is in image format into track data. I feel like the essay Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles allows it. Supportstorm (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Retired names list could use some source- and data-checking

Not sure where else to put this, so this seemed like the best place. I pointed out on the talk page of List of retired Atlantic hurricane names that the data on the list doesn't match up with those given in the hurricanes' articles, and the only reply was one alluding to disputes over proper sourcing. Considering that the list is declared as high-importance, I thought it best to make this more visible to the project's members. —烏Γ (kaw), 22:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way to expand this TFA column. I notice that Brenda was the last cyclone to hit land before Donna, which killed at least 364 and did almost a billion in damage (and that's in 1960 dollars). Is there any research to indicate that the public is less prepared for disastrous storms after a long period of less severe storms? Perhaps I can find a way to work that angle into the Brenda column. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's coming up tomorrow ... I just added "Brenda was the last tropical cyclone to hit the mainland U.S. before the devastating Hurricane Donna, which killed at least 364 and did close to a billion dollars in damage (in 1960 dollars)." I think the case can be made that Brenda was relevant, but I'll have to leave the relevance to the readers' imaginations for now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Two more questions, and there's been some discussion about this so a response would be helpful. 1. As you can see, I left the link off "tropical cyclone" above. In general, there have always been fewer links at TFA than in articles, but I really don't feel strongly one way or the other about this. Would you guys prefer that I always link the first occurrence of "tropical cyclone"? 2. Does the language in the sentence I quote above sound "off" to anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A-Class article assessment discussion

Hi, I wanted to make this wikiproject actively using A class article assessment aware of the discussion. I am aware of the no-consensus discussion from March. I am unsure if A-class is useful for Wikipedia or is just more busy work which is partly why I asked the question. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond at the link you give. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

PAGASA listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for PAGASA to be moved to Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

West Pacific ACE

At this time, we are calculating ACE using RSMC Tokyo's data, as at Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs. This would usually be good as it's the RSMC, except that these wind speeds are over a 10-minute period while ACE, as an American metric, is only defined for 1-minute winds. Weather Underground takes the latter approach with JTWC winds, and I think so should we. This would allow a fair comparison with other basins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Omar

I'm thinking of taking this to FAC. Anyone have any comments before I do? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

give me a storm Suggestion

Give me a storm sugesstion Fun Cake (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

UTC bot?

So, there was a discussion a while back on an FAC of mine, can't remember which one now, but essentially, we have to include a colon : in the timing. So 1800 UTC should be 18:00 UTC. Should we get a bot to fix these? It should be an easy fix. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Would be nice to have, yeah. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New thing: Geostationary images

Hello. Since earlier this year, someone decided to start uploading Geostationary Satellite images in the 2015 PTS article for current/active TCs. So I did the same, upload and update the images. Today, I looked deeply through the same site and found geostationary images for the EPac and the Atlantic storms. What do you guys think? Should we start uploading (and updating) geostationary storm images whenever they're active? Btw I uploaded the Geostationary images of Marty and Joaquin to start if off. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No one's replying. That's a shame for me. :( I guess it's a yeah. We really do need Geostationary images for all 3 basins. I will find if the NRL are also uploading images in other basins. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If they're available, why not! But I'm not sure whether they ought to replace all MODIS infobox images; some of those give a clearer view of the storm's structure and surroundings. Auree ★★ 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that's an alright idea, and I suggest that geostationary images be used in the future for currently active storms. Dustin (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

hurricane lit

Just for da fun of it: Hurricane Lit.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Currently active" vs. "present" in date ranges

On occasions in the past, I have written date ranges as "somethingsomething–present" only to have the word "present" changed to "currently active". "Currently active" is not a point in time, so why is it used in some date ranges? In {{Infobox hurricane small}}, I can conceivably understand why one might put "Currently active" for the |dissipated= parameter, but in templates such as {{TC stats cyclone3}}, I don't understand why the word "Currently active" is used. I think use of the word "present" in date ranges has pretty widely been adopted throughout Wikipedia outside of a few weather-related pages, so that is another thing to consider. All of that said, what do all of you think about this? If you disagree with me for some reason, I am open to compelling arguments. Only a few pages (season articles/active storms) on Wikipedia should have Currently active or present at any one time, so this isn't a super-major issue. I just hope to clarify it. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Present would work better imo.Jason Rees (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. 'Present' it is. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

True-color MODIS images

I managed to get polar2grid to run on my computer so I now have the capability to create MODIS images that are identical to NASA's corrected reflectance versions. If you have a request for a storm image or a particular event I will gladly accept them either here or on my talk page. I also can create corrected reflectance images of VIIRS and AVHRR products. Supportstorm (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

New North Atlantic Dataset

There will be, featured in the newest IBTrACS release, a dataset that includes a reanalysis that was conducted separate from the HRD reanalysis project. Just skimming through the data reveals some major differences from HURDAT. Just wondering if this new dataset would have any affect on data records for the Atlantic. Link here Supportstorm (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Pressure units for the information boxes

I have made Template:Infobox hurricane and Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small use hPa in front of mbar again for all basins except the Atlantic Ocean and the Northeast Pacific Ocean. These two basins still use mbar in front of hPa correctly. -- Meow 12:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Tropical cyclones/Anniversaries

This has been a bit of a pet project of mine this year. User:Nilfanion created the current TC anniversaries nearly nine years ago. There have been many notable storms since then (including one ongoing), and we've discovered many older storms that were quite notable. During his original pass, Nilfanion admitted to including some low-notability storms, mostly just to have a storm for each date. This year, I've gone through the records and made sure every day had a storm of at least some notoriety. I made a spreadsheet here to track the storms. If anyone wants to help update, the list is here, and if you have any storms I might've missed, lemme know. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How to define the strongest storm

The other night I was having a chat on iCyclone's Facebook page with Josh Morgerman and he revealed during the course of the discussion that the NHC does not rank the strongest storm by pressure but uses winds instead. While I am sure he would be the first to say that he is not a reliable source since he went and double checked it all with NHC, this sent alarm bells ringing through my mind as we currently define pressure as being the parameter used for the strongest storm. Anyway i went through a few of the Annual Tropical Cyclone Reports that the centres write and could see no mention of what the strongest storm is or isnt. As a result I would like to propose that we make the strongeststorm= parameter in the infobox optional and have a review off all of the seasons to ensure we are calling the strongest storm correctly based on sourced material. It is worth noting that the seasonal effects charts primarily used outside of the NHC AOR, are able to show the reader what the strongest system is based on both winds and pressure. Any thoughts are welcome.Jason Rees (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I always believe that a tropical cyclone intensity should be determined by sustained winds first. That is how the World Meteorological Organisation determines. -- Meow 01:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a good fix, that we now have a note in the infobox saying it is by pressure. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. May be it could just be built into the infobox? Dustin (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RM for Typhoon Pongsona (disambiguation)

Participants at the requested move for Talk:Typhoon Pongsona (disambiguation) would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Future seasons

Ok so now it's the end for both the 2015 PHS and AHS and now we are getting ready or transitioning into the 2016 seasons, which is months away. Also during November of 2013 and 2014, I made the 2014 and 2015 AHS articles (and they are early). But since no one rv me of doing this, I thought it was fine for making it. So two days ago, I made the 2016 AHS, but Juliancolton rv me for starting up the article and I agreed because now I remembered that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". So when do we put up the 2016 PHS and AHS seasons? In January, right now or a bit later? But just to note that the 2016 PTS article should be created days before January 1, 2016. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We make them when we have info to include in them. It's that simple. When we get the first forecast for the season, then we'll make it. No need before then. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Ok, thank you. But do you know when does the first TSR forecast for 2016 will be issued? Just to keep in track and updated. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
TSR will probably issue their first forecast in May, while PAGASA will start talking about the season in January.Jason Rees (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Generally in December is when we usually do them. Don't see any reason to do it differently this time around. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: Yeah that's what I am talking about (despite I did the 2016 AHS article as early as Nov). It's December now and I am planning to both the 2016 EPac and AHS articles since the 2015 seasons had ended. Is it the right time now, or maybe a bit later? As I said, Juliancolton has been rv me despite it's Dec now, as you said. I've replied to him and he hasn't responded. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
There will be more information later and an article isn't of practical use this early on, so I personally would say later. I think the issue isn't that you aren't being allowed to create the articles this early now, it is that you were allowed to do so in previous years. Dustin (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Typhoon2013, what more needed to be said? I reminded you of WP:CRYSTAL, an official policy which discourages the creation of separate articles on "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names [...] if only generic information is known about the item", and you acknowledged my message. I'm not particularly concerned with how (or by whom) it's been done in previous years; we have no more information on the 2016 seasons than we do for 2020, and nobody would argue to create those articles just yet. It's also wholly unnecessary to comment out an entire article for the sake of being the first guy in – it's highly confusing for anyone who opens the edit window and isn't intimately familiar with wiki-markup, and implies that somebody intends to take ownership of the article. Small bits of developing info are acceptable to hide, but not an entire article over a redirect. As Hurricanehink said, it'll be appropriate to flesh out the 2016 NHC basins when we have any sort of non-generic information about them, likely the first seasonal forecasts. There are so many more productive things to be spending time on in the off-season! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


@Dustin V. S.: But the 2016 PTS article should be created by later this month or by New Years' right? The WPac basin never ends. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
IMO, it shouldn't be started until New Year's Day at the earliest (unless we get forecasts ahead of time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This comes up year after year but in my honest opinion the 2016 PTS, can be started at any time during the last week of December. Especially since we some details on the season already.Jason Rees (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: As Jason Rees said, the 2016 PTS article should be created by the end of this month, possible the Nio as well, but it makes sense for the WPac as it never ends and you will never the know that a storm will develop by January 1. Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Current infobox

Typhoon2013 is trying to put the current inforbox to all seasonal articles of tropical cyclones. It may be considered as a good idea but it really makes other editors very stressful to update, and it often looks unnecessary. -- Meow 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Meow: Since last year, some users have been telling me to add infoboxes in all basins and therefore, I agreed. That's the reason why I started using the infobox for the 2015 North Indian ocean season article. I just added the infobox there (just to see if someone agrees or disagrees) and later that day I found users like Cyclonebiskit updating it. Also if you say unnecessary, then why do we have it in the WPac? IMO it's important to people, especialy when the forecast track is shown. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Meow: Just in case you didn't see my last week's reply, I think it's fine now. Adding current infoboxes in all seasonal articles are fine and I don't find it that stressful by updating the infobox every 6 hours. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don’t have time to update. -- Meow 10:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think we should get rid of the Current infobox for all seasons and remember that we are not a weather agency or news service.Jason Rees (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
We're still an encyclopedia though, so we can certainly still summarize. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: @Jason Rees: First of all, who even brought up an infobox hurricane current? Well, yes, we are not an agency Jason, but I personally think it's a good idea to follow the agencies. Just saying that when I arrived here in Wiki in 2013, the infobox hurricane current was already there. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean the current infobox for the individual storm, or for the season? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Sorry my mistake. For individual storm, when they're active (the infobox hurricane current, not the regular infobox hurricane small) Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Yea, I don't see the need for the current hurricane infobox. For our readers, the info doesn't change terribly much every 3-6 hours (the position is pretty abstract until it comes ashore). I'm fine if we don't use them at all. There are more important things our editors could be doing than changing the pressure by 1 mbar and the position by .1 latitude. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: So from now on, starting next year, we do not need to add the infobox hurricane current if a storm is active? I really need to ping a lot of users for them to be aware of this in the future and just in case someone has an idea about this or what they say about it. @Supportstorm: @Yellow Evan: @Tatiraju.rishabh: @Cyclonebiskit: @Nino Marakot: Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine either way...people seem to find the current infobox thing useful, even IPs update them from time to time, though. Could still be useful to keep the "current storm information" sections, which provide links to the proper warning agency/agencies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Same. It is time consuming and it would seem the only time editors updated the info was when a cyclone was near landfall or at a high intensity. During the monotonous portions of the season we would see info in some articles that were days old. If we keep the infobox is there a way to program a bot to update the template with current information? Supportstorm (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: Great idea about the bot thing, but I do not know how to do that or who to go for this. Doing that is an easy way for users and is time-saving (lol, we are so lazy). Otherwise, if we are not continuing using this template, in my opinion, we can only use it if the storm has an article or if the storm has a high chance of becoming a known storm (eg. Typhoon Haiyan, Hurricane Sandy etc), especially for Cat 5 storms I guess. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: @Hurricanehink: Maybe too early to say this, but the GFS predicts TS Pali forming and possibly another after that by next week. If this happens, do we include the infobox hurricane current as usual with active systems? Or not anymore? Because with all these information since 28 Nov, I would say that it's a 50/50 atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit speculative, but sure, if no one objects, let's just try using the regular infoboxes for current storms. I think using them should be limited to when there is a current storm article (for Patricia and Haiyan storms). I agree with Cyclonebiskit, that we'll still use the "current storm information". The watches/warnings don't need updating as often. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Melor is a good example of why that's not a good criterion. There's no article on it (yet), but it is going to have a very high impact on landfall, and we likely have readers in the path of it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: When you said "regular infoboxes", are you talking about the Infobox hurricane small or Infobox hurricane current? Also, I agree now with the current storm information, so does this mean to use it in all basins? Because from what I see, you guys only use the current storm information in EPac (plus CPac) and Atlantic basins. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Infobox hurricane small", which is currently the only infobox used (as no storm is present). As for current storm info, other basins don't have the same interest, or the same warning structure that the NHC basins have. I think just having a cited summary written is more important than having the updated info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That it is a lot of work to update these infoboxes is not a valid reason to not have them. A bot could really work well, especially for JTWC, NHC, and CPHC data, which is available in standardized formats. @Legoktm: used to have a bot to this end. Also, I fail to see how the "too much work" argument holds up with rapidly intensifying storms where the peak intensity parameter of the permanent infobox must be constantly updated anyways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Edouard (2002)

This article will show up at WP:TFA tomorrow. The first sentence says "Tropical Storm Edouard was the first of eight named storms to form in September 2002, the most such storms for any month at the time", and there's a ref after it, but the ref doesn't seem to support the claim that September 2002 had more tropical storms than any other month, only that it had more North Atlantic tropical storms than any other month. Is the broader claim also true? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I don't believe the broader claim is true. I think the sentence was working on the assumption that since it's an Atlantic storm article, the sentence only applied to the basin. I've added "North Atlantic" to it to avoid any confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

1933 Tuxpan hurricane article under construction

feel free to add any info you can find.98.174.223.41 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I linked a few potentially useful newspaper clippings at the sandbox talk page. There's not a huge amount of info on this system, but definitely enough to expand the subsection in the season article, at least. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

El Niño Southern Oscillation listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for El Niño Southern Oscillation to be moved to El Niño–Southern Oscillation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This is an old one and the nominator is long gone, so you guys might want to check it before it hits the Main Page. Also: would anyone like to do the TFA summary? - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_34&oldid=1160941896"