Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Abbreviation for knots in {{Infobox hurricane current}}: "kn" versus "kt"

I notice that in many of the current storm infoboxes, we have been using "kn" as an abbreviation for "knots." This conflicts with the National Hurricane Center, though, which uses "kt." When and why did we start using "kn" instead of the abbreviation used in official advisories? Master of Time (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone reply, please? Master of Time (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

it probably comes down to the fact that the MoS uses kn as the unit symbol for knots.Jason Rees (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units. I would suggest that the rationale for this is due to the general purpose nature of Wikipedia whereas NHC is rather specific. kn is, apparently, the preferred symbol according ISO; for whatever that is worth.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Ophelia (2017) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to be moved to Hurricane Ophelia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Typhoon Lan (2017) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Lan (2017) to be moved to Typhoon Lan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Can we get a standard for wind speed units put into storm article structure on the Project main page?

I came across this discussion from an era gone by seeking to form consensus on units to use in the bodies of articles (seems the template takes care of the units in the infobox.) But I didn't see that information anywhere straightforward in the policies. It seems a fairly standard way of doing things has developed these days, even if that discussion never came to actual official declaration? It would seem those policies might be useful to inform people of in the main guide, or at worst the TC style guide. If some things are still flexible/undecided, that could be noted too? Just to give some sort of formal placement to what works and is predominant (even if not an official standard?)

My reasoning for seeking this is actually quite tangential... I fell into the NHC rounding error trap in improving/expanding Hurricane Erin (1995) last year and was later corrected... and was confused for a long while, even as I continued on investigating down the rabbit hole of why. Eventually I came to find they'd updated their rounding in this talk topic, but of course old product archives on NHC's site (and probably many other places) still list the old mis-rounded wind speeds.

So after coming here and searching for the policy on which rounding to use (and not particularly finding a set consensus on that either in the talk... where are we at?) It would seem a standard, a quick notice on that within the policy statement on wind speed units, and maybe even an inline comment noting the issue put within the pages of old NHC-basin TCs might just prevent people from tripping over themselves later/getting a mess of inconsistent pages. Certainly we could just stick to the status quo as is so often the case, and leave it open to the chaotic nature, if we absolutely must... but even then, a note in the guidelines would at least help people like me from pulling out a few more hairs? ;-)

Cheers, JeopardyTempest (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I dont see a major problem with your edits last year and nor do I see where you were reverted bar by yourself, though I do see that one of the bots decided to put the windspeeds in   which per the MoS is quite correct. The NHC's changes to the SSHS were more technical then anything and were to basically correct historical inaccuracies over the boundries of Cat 4. This is because when they converted from knots to mph/km/h in public advisories they were having to mislead and say that 115 kts was 135 mph rather than 130 mph. However, I think that most of the systems that it would have impacted have been changed to use the newer figures, while our main sources for the articles uses kts primarily. I would personally welcome a note being added to the guidelines.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch FAC

I have nominated Hurricane Mitch 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. Auree ★★ 09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 EPac and Atl seasons

Hi and just to note, doesn't mean both the EPac and Atlantic basins have officially ended, doesn't mean to immediately create the 2018 seasons. Please don't get too excited about this. The Atlantic one could be created when the first TSR forecast is issued (which is around mid this month) and the EPac could be created at least the same time as that, but just to be safe, I would create it just before January 1. See what has been discussed last year. The WPac and Nio articles are simply fine to be created any time this month as those basins 'never end'. Thanks so much. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ACE Index considered as OR?

@Yellow Evan: @Jason Rees: @Meow: @Hurricanehink: @Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: @LightandDark2000: @Jasper Deng: Do you guys think we should continue doing ACE calcs in different basins? Really imo if ACE calcs are mentioned in the EPac and Atlantic basins, then it should be mentioned in other basins. Especially ACE is used with 1-min sustained winds. Full discussion and reasons here: User talk:Jason Rees#SHEM ACE considered as OR?. What are your guys thoughts on this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that they are OR. The track data is all provided from reliable sources (RSMC agencies), and the methods of calculating ACEs are well-established. As long as the calculations match up with the track data, and as long as the ACE numbers are linked to the talk page with the said calculations (or a post-season report), then it is fine. ACEs are more commonly used in the Northern Hemisphere basins, because the agencies in the Northern Hemisphere often use ACEs to gauge seasonal activity. I'm not sure if any basins in the Southern Hemisphere do this, but if there is enough track data from all of the storms to generate complete, consistent storm data, then it should be okay to include ACEs for those storms as well. However, you will also need another special talk page for those basins in which the ACEs for a particular cyclone season are added up. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: Off the RSMC's worldwide only the NHC and IMD calculate the ACE, I also know that the JTWC which isnt an RSMC doesnt calculate it either, which is one of the reasons, why I consider it OR. I also note that we have systems with 35 kt and 50 kt winds, that are not called tropical cyclones in the SHEM and would love to know if they should be counted? If not, why not? If we have to calculate it ourselves and include ACE in all basins then what about other trivial stats such as Power Dissipative Index or the Velocity Flux? What about calculating the 1, 3 or 10 mins ourselves? Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: And as I said though, we can add both ACE calcs by the JTWC and the RSMC trackdata. Though we have a problem where ACE is normally used using the 1-min wind speeds. So I do now see the point you're bringing up here, JR. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
ACE is only meaningful for 1-minute sustained winds and is hence unofficial whenever using JTWC data, so we should limit it to where it is derived from RSMC data. @Jason Rees: Converting between 1-, 3-, and 10-minute is OR because in that case, there is no single well-defined formula for that. No such formula is implied by the definition, unlike in the case of ACE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Yes we can do it via both the JTWC and RSMC Data but we shouldnt be doing either, unless we have a source for the result of the calculations since it ends up being a useless stat and missing significant systems such as 22U, Cempuka or Anggrek.Jason Rees (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Also while I support the usage of RSMC data, I would rather see it sourced rather than us defining which systems count/don’t count since that is OR.Jason Rees (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Like the usual, we follow the trackdata/advisories from the RSMC, especially like JMA when they do Best Track. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As I have said throughout this discussion, we shouldn’t be doing that full stop, as you are defining which systems go in rather than taking a sourced total from the RSMC. For example: Does Anggrek 2010 count as it had 65 kts winds in BT, but was downgraded to a tropical low. There are numerous other examples of such systems there, which is why it is better that we avoid committing OR and calculating it ourselves.Jason Rees (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: As I have said above, ACE has no meaning for JMA data, as it is 10-minute sustained winds. We should not be calculating ACE for basins other than the CPAC, EPAC, and ATL, where 1-minute sustained wind data comes from the RSMC's, and we don't have problems with "tropical low" or other designations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I ask that we use JTWC data for ACE for the reasons illustrated above. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not until its defined by the JTWC since as you know we are not here to speculate on what systems should be included in ACE.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
We'd be presumably calculating it the same way we calculate it for the ATL/EPAC and how others ie Weather Bel/CSU do it. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would hope that we wouldnt be calculating it full stop, especially as it includes subtropical storms that the JTWC dont warn on? I think it is seriously better that we just leave ACE out of JTWC AoR with the exception of the NIO, until we get the JMA and the SHEM agencies calculating it ourselves and giving us a source for it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Increased frequency and severity of storms?

I've been noticing that we have been getting more and more articles on storms on the main page. So much so, that I began to wonder if this is related to an increase in their frequency. Are there more storms these days?

This has started questions spinning around inside my head. Here are some more of them...

Is global warming causing an increase in the frequency and severity of storms?

The search phrase Frequency of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?

The search phrase Severity of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?

Does the phenomenon of more and stronger storms have a name?

Is there an article on it?

Is this simply a whether pattern or an example of climate change?

What are the driving factors?

Will the frequency and severity continue to increase?

What are the ramifications?

Did humans cause this?

If so, is it reversible?

Is there a similar increase in other types of storms (tornadoes, etc.)?

Is there a cause-effect relationship between the warming of the oceans and wildfires?

How has the change in storm frequency/severity impacted the meteorological field?

What questions should the public-at-large be asking?

What the heck is going on?

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 21:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the general consensus is that we are not getting more hurricanes/storms infact they are decreasing, but because of the warmer seas they are lasting longer, developing sooner etc. You have also got to remember that we are hearing about storms more and more because of better communnications etc.Jason Rees (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the overall storm situation getting worse over time? Does the longer/earlier storms thing have a name? Is there an article on it? Is this a form of climate change? If so, what is causing it? (And the rest of the questions above). The Transhumanist 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist: Yes, the situation is getting worse over time, but the earth is also getting more populated, adding four billion people in the 20th century alone, and much of that growth centered in urban areas near the coast. Are storms getting worse? According to the records, potentially, but we have only had good recordkeeping for storm intensity worldwide since at best the 1950s, which is far too short of a time to determine whether something is happening more often or with more severity. All of that being said, there have been especially strong tropical cyclones since 2005, in comparison to the preceding decades. The strongest storm in the Atlantic was in 2005, Eastern Pacific Ocean (off Mexico) in 2015, the strongest landfalling storm in the western Pacific Ocean in 2013, the strongest storm in the Southern Hemisphere in 2016, and the storm with the highest winds in the south-west Indian Ocean in 2016. Storms are also hitting places in unusual areas: Brazil (2004), Yemen (205), Oman (207), South Korea (strongest storm in 2003). So to answer your questions in order:
  • Is global warming causing an increase in the frequency and severity of storms? - as User:Jason Rees said, there are potentially fewer storms, but more severe, yes, and this trend is likely to continue, in unexpected places.
  • The search phrase Frequency of storms/Severity of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it? - no. A storm is a generic weather event. Welcome to the tropical cyclone WikiProject :P
  • The Does the phenomenon of more and stronger storms have a name? - "Climatology." There is an old article on Tropical cyclone windspeed climatology that perhaps isn't the best example of this, but Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology certainly details storms' other destructive element: rain.
  • Is this simply a whether pattern or an example of climate change? - Little from column A, little from column B. User:Cyclonebiskit or User:thegreatdr could explain it better, but the gist of it is that the atmosphere is driven by the series of changes in barometric pressure, which has gotten more erratic and unstable since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
  • What are the driving factors? - overconsumption of oil and excessive pollution in the atmosphere, overpopulation
  • Will the frequency and severity continue to increase? - probably, and it'll show up in unexpected areas. My prediction: a hurricane striking Europe, South Africa, and California by 2050.
  • What are the ramifications?' - increased focus by governments to prevent tropical cyclone related deaths, which has been an unsung success story since 1970. There will probably be efforts to change the atmosphere (see weather control), but we will probably see either more Venice-style cities (New York could be largely underwater by 2100 due to rising seas and a storm surge), or else we see a giant series of dams and dykes (like the Netherlands built in the Zuiderzee Works).
  • Did humans cause this? If so, is it reversible? - partly/probably, and doubtful short-term. We are in the Anthropocene era, the Holocene extinction era. Humans have changed the world at a fantastic rate. If we left suddenly and conquered other planets/lived in space habitats, Earth would eventually return somewhat to nature, and a new equilibrium would set in. The 21st century will hopefully see major strides toward reducing humanity's long-term impact on Earth, but the effects have already started. That is why immediate action is needed, and why the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was so idiotic.
  • Is there a similar increase in other types of storms (tornadoes, etc.)? - the number of tornadoes in a given year depends on how many were actually reported. Sometimes they are so small, and in an area so rural, that they are undetected and unconfirmed. Tornado intensity is estimated based on the damage to structures.
  • Is there a cause-effect relationship between the warming of the oceans and wildfires? - partly. Weather patterns and precipitation rates are changing in intensity and location.
  • How has the change in storm frequency/severity impacted the meteorological field? - more scrutiny from Republican officials, more heightened importance.
  • What questions should the public-at-large be asking? - What can we do? Is my elected official on the side of science or is it bought by oil lobby interests?
  • What the heck is going on? - tropical cyclones have affected much of human's history, and we need to learn to work with nature, ensuring that this big beautiful planet is still here for our descendants in a good enough state that you can be outside, breathing, enjoying the oceans and the trees and the mountains. But with wildfires, smog, deadly storms, and droughts, humanity needs to come together on a planet-wide basis and improve the lives of everyone.
  • Is the overall storm situation getting worse over time? - yes.
  • Does the longer/earlier storms thing have a name? - yes, "hurricane season". Originally, we thought storms in the Atlantic Ocean predominantly formed from July 15th to October 31st, but we realize now they can happen any time of year given the right conditions.
I'll gladly answer more questions Transhumanist, but I suggest you check out some of the articles that are on Wikipedia. Tropical cyclone coverage is some of the best-written areas of research on the entire website, and I am proud of the editing efforts of everyone in this destructive season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Your answers have been very illuminating.
This whole overpopulation crisis and the potential of it causing ecological collapse by runaway climate change via anthropogenic air pollution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions generated by deforestation (for land-use change) and the burning of fossil fuels has me wondering, along with a great many other people, whether we've gone past the point of reversibility. Are we on a collision course with ultimate disaster? Is extreme weather our wake-up call, or a harbinger of doom? If the trend in storm conditions isn't reversible, then does that mean that we are destined to enter a positive feedback loop in climate change that we cannot prevent?
I'm interested in collecting links to all the articles and article sections that deal with the phenomenon we've been discussing (worsening of storms over time). Are there any more? "Climatology" doesn't appear to be the name of the phenomenon we have been talking about, but rather the name of the field of study that it falls within. If there is a specific trend in which extreme whether is getting worse, I would like to know if that trend has a name, and what that name is. Namelessness is akin to invisibility.
The relevant treatments I've read so far are Long-term tropical cyclone activity trends and Tropical cyclones and climate change, but they do not cite names for any of the trends or predictions they present. Can you point me to any sources that name these phenomena/predictions? Without names, it makes it problematic to refer to them, or to look them up. Are they nameless? The Transhumanist 12:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you guys and have a great holidays!!

@Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, Yellow Evan, Typhoon2017, Hurricanehink, Keith Edkins, Meow, Cyclonebiskit, Supportstorm, MarioProtIV, ChocolateTrain, LightandDark2000, and Nino Marakot: and to all other users I have worked with or in general, I just wanted to say thank you guys so much for another great year! We had some ups and downs, but we still handled it and got through it. Thanks for your contributions and the teamwork we've made to create these articles. Yes we still have good ol' Tembin out there, but I hope everyone have (had) a great Christmas and have a happy holidays! I really enjoyed working with you guys and I hope 2018 will be another great year for us and the project and have more fantastic TCs. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Enjoy the holidays too. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

:Happy Festivus 🐱💬 09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays guys :) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas.Jason Rees (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not want to say something good to someone who cannot improve himself.👎 🐱💬 14:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
That's really classless. Just because you don't agree with someone on everything doesn't mean you don't wish them well. I can probably name 10-15 things I don't agree with at least one person on WPTC, but you don't see me making personal attacks like giving them a thumbs down as a result. Anyway, Happy Holidays (and to those who celebrate it, Happy Boxing Day) everyone! YE Pacific Hurricane 19:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

October 1942 tropical storm article underconstruction

I've started work on an article for the 1942 October tropical storm , feel free to add any info if you like. 216.24.109.110 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just moved that out of Wikipedia talk; the new link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Sandbox 4. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

SWIO intensities

I noticed that the intensities for SWIO cyclones in the seasons from 1962-63 to 1967-68 match up with the values from Neumann (can be found via IBTrACS) as if they were 1-minute intensities converted to 10-minute. But in the 1968-69 season, the intensities appear to assume the values from Neumann are already in 10-minute winds (for example here for Enid-Fanny). I haven't checked on any later seasons yet, but there are inconsistencies, what should we do about it? Additionally, I have been unable to find any information on whether Neumann's values are in 1-min or 10-min. atomic7732 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, after a bit of research, this (p. 34) appears to indicate that the Neumann dataset is all in 10-minute winds, which means that the 1962-63 to 1967-68 (and potentially other seasons) will need to be updated to reflect that, but I am not entirely sure the dataset referred to in that document is the same as the one used on IBTrACS. atomic7732 21:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure we should be updating intensities to reflect Newmann or IBTRACS, when we have a BT archive and reports from Reunion.Jason Rees (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have a look at that. atomic7732 01:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The issues we have mostly concern seasons for which there are no good reports with intensities beyond the Neumann dataset on IBTrACS (other than the category classifications), which seems to have been in use on the season articles for a while now, and with inconsistencies. So should we remove the intensities? I think it would be good to determine the methodology of the Neumann dataset first before updating or removing the intensities though. I will have a look at the library tomorrow to see if there's any information on it, as I cannot find anything online concerning the 1999 paper the data comes from. atomic7732 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I was unfortunately unable to acquire the original dataset (library said they couldn't find it or even do an interlibrary loan), so we just have this, which says the Neumann data is probably 1-min. Now what? atomic7732 20:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Neumann set is in 1-min. It seems to me someone added it without knowing this. Also talking about inconsistencies, I've found that the infobox treats CMA data as 10-min when in reality they report in an unorthodox 2-min. Supportstorm (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Newmann is Charles J Newmann and was one of the creators of HURDAT, as a result I would presume 1-min as well. I would also support the ripping out of article all intenisties that are not backed up by reliable sources.Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Naughty or nice...

I'm sorry but I'm just getting annoyed now. There are some anon users who are stuffing up in the past several days. Anon users beginning with 2405:204:4... btw. They remove infoboxes for no reason, some I guess create "new storms" because they just want to, and one actually changed 06F to 05F. I don't know when this will calm down but unfortunately it's still happening :( . Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ill keep an eye on the pages @Typhoon2013:, however, we do have to remember to assume good faith.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Keith Edkins, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Nino Marakot, Supportstorm, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, and Yellow Evan: This is my first nomination of a featured picture candidate. If it is promoted, it will be the first single typhoon featured picture of the English Wikipedia, and more people will be aware of annular tropical cyclones. Whether you support or oppose, I appreciate your attention. I also apologise for any inconvenience I caused before. 🐱💬 02:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Typhoon Noru of 2017 at its peak intensity

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 16:57:17 (UTC)

Original – Typhoon Noru, with the tropical storm (or above) duration of 19 days, had all requirements of an annular typhooon on July 31, 2017, as it did not have clear rainbands and significant cirrus clouds. The size of Noru’s eye is average but relatively large for that small and axisymmetric system.
Reason
High-resolution picture of a nearly perfect annular typhoon at its peak intensity. NASA’s Aqua satellite captured Typhoon Noru with a pefect angle, presenting an exquisite tropical cyclone. In the picture, the eye is so symmetric and deep; the convective ring looks so compact and smooth, but it does not attach to the monsoon trough. Moreover, the eye and the convective ring are in the golden ratio. When I initially saw the image last July, I was truly touched beyond words. I have checked many beautiful tropical cyclones in Wikipedia, yet none of them is really comparable. Aside from the extremely rare appearance, Noru was the second strongest typhoon of 2017 and the second longest lasting Northwest Pacific tropical storm in history, which ultimately struck Japan.
Articles in which this image appears
Annular tropical cyclone, 2017 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Noru (2017)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
Creator
MODIS image was captured by NASA’s Aqua satellite and optimized by Meow for solving overexposure.

Promoted File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)



Partially absent during Chinese New Year

I will not be able to use my computer from 14 February to 21 February. Therefore, I can only update JTWC track maps and some information during the period, as those things can be done via my phone and tablet. I reported the issue of the International Dateline of Worldview yesterday, yet NASA has no deadline to fix it. Finally, I also appreciate people like Typhoon2013 and Nino Marakot who helped promote the satellite image of Typhoon Noru as a featured picture of the English Wikipedia. Happy Chinese New Year. 🐱💬 01:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick style question

The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season starts off: "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season", and others have a similar pattern. I'm doing a survey on some style questions. Does anyone object to "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an unusually active season", or "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was unusually active", moving the link down to the second sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: either one of the suggested options works for me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks CB. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Season effects table

@Jason Rees, Typhoon2013, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, and Supportstorm: I think we need to decide how we are going to handle the season effects tables here. While the "consensus" was to change the table format across all basins, I think it is a bit over the top. I think the Atlantic and EPac should be excluded from the newer table as it involves way more text having to be added in to fulfill the table, while Template:TC stats cyclone3 allows way less text to be put in yet come out with a similar result (which reduces the amount of bytes added). Though the fact of the newer format was to include sortability and to adhere WP:V, JD recently made it sortable which fixes that issue. However one thing that still needs to be addressed is the verification part, which I've partially been able to add however it is still buggy (and could probably use some help). Plus, having to convert to the newer table for the more recent Atl seasons (as its scattered about from the years 1979 to now with a notable truncation post-2003), esp say the extremely active ones. Basically if we could fix the cyclone3 template up to adhere WP:V we can perhaps go back to that one if applicable. An alternative way to do this is to just leave it as it is now but just add the refs inside the damage/death slots akin to what 1980 and 1992 have which honestly doesn't look so bad. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Having had a proper look through Jasper's edits to the tables for the Atlantic and EPAC, I strongly suspect that if we can replicate that coding on the templates for the rest of the world then we could cut down on the amount of text we have to include in the articles. Otherwise, I strongly object to making the ATL/EPAC immune from the changes since they are no active than an average PTS. I would be open to seeing the modular based system for SE charts return to other basins but would like to see damages fully written out and not just to the nearest 100 mill or whatever since its pointless in most basins. I would also like to see the full classification ie: Cat 3 STC written out and it not just abbreviated to Cat 1. We would also need to include an option to change the timing of the sustained winds. Jason Rees (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Changing the damages would be quite easy and I could do that rn. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Current status on storm sub-articles

@Jasper Deng: @Yellow Evan: @Jason Rees: @Meow: @Supportstorm: @Hurricanehink: @Typhoon2013: @Typhoon2017: Don't remember having a full-fledged discussion on this and there's been a decent amount of back and forth on recent major events...what should be done with the "current storm information"? As an encyclopedia, we should be prioritizing an encyclopedic format but when dealing with active events we need to adjust for that. In regards to storm sub-articles, since we have more space to work with I propose we include the general {{infobox hurricane}} as the primary infobox shown with {{infobox hurricane current}} relegated to the "current storm information" section. This allows us to maintain the (usually) up-to-date info on the storm without taking away the always valuable infobox hurricane template. Recent example using Gita: dual template version; single template version~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Readers are going to be confused by the presence of two infoboxes. Many can't distinguish between the current storm status and its peak intensity. The discussion I referred to may have been off-wiki, but I explicitly remember repeating this argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Them not being able to distinguish between the two isn't our fault and should be irrelevant to providing information in a more encyclopedic manner. The information is clearly explained as "maximum" and "current", with the second infobox explicitly placed in a section titled "current" with "current" repeated twice in the template. Aside from screaming in their faces there's nothing we can do beyond that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Usability by our readers is the top consideration we should make here, since there is nothing in WP:NOT or other policies that explicitly supports your position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just remove the current template. Editors have to focus on updating the box instead of writing sentences, but that is not what Wikipedia should be. 🐱💬 09:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I like having the regular infobox in the top-right of the article for current storms. That is standardized for all TC articles. This way users can get important info like when the storm formed, areas affected, and most importantly it’ll another way of reminding the user that the storm is still current (in the dissipation field). I also like having the current infobox in the “Current storm section”, which is like the section in the season article. It just seems the most natural to me having the two infoboxes separate. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This all seems to be partially related to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and keeping it the way it is now with the infobox hurricane hidden is perfectly fine, albeit maybe adding the affected areas and formation date to make up for that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally agree with @Hurricanehink: and @Cyclonebiskit: and would personally like to see the current hurricane infobox removed full stop since it doesnt work properly and we have had complaints about the whole section over the last few months from the regulars at ITN.Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Include current infobox if there's enough room so that there's no whitepsace. Otherwise, just the main infobox works. YE Pacific Hurricane 07:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The current one is more important. Since readers will be reading about its current status in reliable news coverage we should prioritize that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We are Not a news service though which is the brunt of the complaints from ITN.Jason Rees (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Reiterating what JR is saying, we're not obligated (we're encouraged to report after the fact, actually) to have up-to-date current status of storms. We provide that out of passion for the topic. Links to official current information are provided in the "current storm information" section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if we are still to have it then we should not be updating the current storm information using the RBT for either poistions or intenisty. The JTWC now provide 6 hourly warnings for the whole of their AOR and do give a warning time position in their remarks.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Kathleen (1976) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Kathleen (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Kathleen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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


Article up for promotion to A-Class

List any proposed A-Class assessments here. Discussion will take place on the article talk page. In general, at least two people should endorse promotion.

Source guide for tropical cyclone articles by User:Hylian Auree

All of the below is based on style guidelines per WP:MOS.
Note: The names and titles used as examples in this guide are fictional and do not represent real articles or reports unless otherwise stated

Titles

  • For news and journal articles, the title of the article needs to be written in lower case. Naturally, proper nouns, as well as names of places, people, etc., retain their capitalization. Example: Not More Than 500,000 Left Homeless in Brenden Moses County by Hurricane Julian, but More than 500,000 left homeless in Brenden Moses County by Hurricane Julian.
  • For reports, books, press releases, and conferences, the title of the text should be fully capitalized. Example: Not Rainfall report on Hurricane Julian and its tropical remnants in Brenden Moses County, but Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian and its Tropical Remnants in Brenden Moses County.
  • For regular websites, the reference title assumes the capitalization format of the original website title. However, full-caps words or titles still need to be rewritten in lower case.
  • All titles should have proper punctuation per the WP:MOS (e.g. straight  '  rather than curly  ’  apostrophes or quotation marks, spaced en dashes instead of misused spaced hyphens, unspaced colons, semicolons, etc.), even when the source titles may not be stylized as such. Example: Not Brenden Moses County on alert : JULIAN plays wait-and-see - Forecasters warn of storm’s “undivinable” nature, but Brenden Moses County on alert: Julian plays wait-and-see – Forecasters warn of storm's "undivinable" nature.

Dates

  • The publication date of a source is listed in the |date= field. While this can normally be found at the top of the source, it is sometimes hidden in a more obscure location (e.g. the bottom of the page, the page history, or the url of the page). For web sources that are frequently updated, use the most recent revision date. If the source is undated, this needs to be indicated by adding "n.d.", as such: |date=n.d.
  • For online sources on web pages that may be suspect to domain changes, the retrieval date (the date upon which the source was found and last accessed) is listed in the |accessdate= field. This is always the case for online newspapers or web sites, though retrieval dates should be considered for online reports as well. For books and journals, even when electronic (such as Google Books), a retrieval date is unnecessary.

Authors vs publishers in reports, press releases or documents

  • Although these all fall under the |publisher= field, it is rather cumbersome and impractical to include every single parent department (NCEP, NWS, NOAA) in |publisher= for a report or document published by the WPC. Therefore, simply listing the lowest branch as the publisher suffices (so Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center. rather than Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center; National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NOAA. or something).
  • Above all: DO NOT compartmentalize these branches and spread them across the fields. These are the |publisher= of reports, not the |author= or |work=. Example: NOT Hink, Andrew; Weather Prediction Center (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (Report). College Park, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), but simply Hink, Andrew (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). College Park, MD: Weather Prediction Center.
  • The |work= field is often redundant here, unless the referenced report/document is part of a project, database, or contained in a separate website. In this case the project/database/website name may be listed as work, though this is often optional.
  • A recent example I came across can be found here. This is an undated rainfall report for Hurricane Earl (2010) from Météo-France published on their site, so an appropriate formatting would be {{cite report|url=http://pluiesextremes.meteo.fr/antilles/2010-Earl.html|title=Earl 2010: Ouragan|publisher=Météo France|date=n.d.|accessdate=September 13, 2015}}. However, note the "Pluies Extrêmes Aux Antilles" ("Extreme Rainfall in the Antilles") at the top of the webpage and within the url; this suggests this is a separate web archive/database for extreme rainfall events in the Antilles, documented by Meteo France as an extension of their website (meteo.fr). In this case, the |work= parameter may serve disclose this additional information.

Newspaper vs publisher vs agency vs author in news articles

  • In the |newspaper= field (or the more obsolete |work= field), list the name of the newspaper. Online newspapers are sometimes hard to distinguish from web or radio sites; looking for an "About us" section on the site or searching the newspaper name on Wikipedia may help in this case.
  • The |publisher= parameter is used for sources from broadcasters (i.e. BBC), news channels (i.e. CNN, Fox News), radio channels (CBS Radio), etc. For newspapers, listing the publisher is unnecessary and redundant.
  • The most frequent error I see in newspaper citation formatting is misusing the |author= field for the news agency (i.e. AFP, AP, Reuters, etc.). There is a special |agency= field to list these agencies. Again, only names of individuals should be included in the |author= field.

Hurricane Isaac (2012) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Isaac (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Isaac. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Advisories

I get the impression that people are reluctant to write about systems outside of NHC's AOR, while people who know what they are doing and wouldnt mind doing them like myself @Cyclonebiskit and Hurricanehink: are busy with other projects. As a result, I thought I would summarise where to find the best information for a TC from each of the main warning centres outside of the NHC AOR. It is also worth noting that with much appreciation that @Keith Edkins: archives every single one of the main warnings from all of the warning centers on his website, before archiving them through Webcite and putting them on the talk page of each season. Once a system is completed these are archived in the relevant monthly subpage and can be called upon by anyone at any time and come in very useful.

Significant advisories

  • JMA - WWJP25, TC Warnings, Prognostic reasoning, JMA BT.
  • JTWC - Prognastic reasonings, TC Warnings, Significant Tropical Weather Advisories.
  • IMD - TWO, Advisories, PTCR, ATCR
  • RSMC la Reunion - Advisories, ATCR
  • BoM - TWO, Technical Bulletins, PTCR
  • Nadi - Tropical Disturbance Summuary, Tropical Disturbance Advisory, Press Releases on website, Fiji Islands Climate Summuary.

For historical TC's I have acessessed a number of ATCR/TCR's for Nadi and have compiled a list of resources in my user space.Jason Rees (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Image deletions

I don't know if anyone else has been getting an increased number of image deletion request with images they uploaded, but I certainly have. There seems to be some campaign over on the commons to flag tropical cyclone files for deletion en masse. I figure it's a form of vandalism because some of the deletion reasons are vague or saying the copyright is invalid because the anon couldn't be arsed to look through the source to find the image. The irritating thing is some of the images have been deleted without any discussion by admins that didn't look into it.

The reason for the post is if you had the same problem I was thinking of submitting on the administrators noticeboard about the user and group of anons doing this. Supportstorm (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been getting them too, primarily from User:B dash. Some of them were valid deletion requests as they were copyvios that I'd accidentally uploaded 10 years ago, but many are on the theme of being "bad" images. — Iunetalk 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been having the same problem with B dash. He nominates pretty much every image I upload for deletion for no particular reason. I there there have been a total of 22 instances now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Same as well. Pinging this bad boy here. @B dash: Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Remember WP:Civil and WP:AGF @Typhoon2013: as @B dash: is not a bad boy.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone

(Cross posting as their are so many wiki projects n this subject I am not sure what one is most active) I am checking Good Articles with cleanup tags on them. Cyclone has a tag asking for expansion of the section on climate change, and I am inclined to agree with the tagger. This is a vital article of top importance to this project, which I think is reasonably active, so I am hoping someone is willing to look into this. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if there should be a section on climate change in that article since it is talking about cyclones in general rather than tropical cyclones specifically.Jason Rees (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. It is not my subject area. I am going to show my ignorance and ask what the difference between a cyclone and a tropical cyclone is. It has been tagged for over a year now though, so some resolution either way would be nice. AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
A tropical cyclone (hurricane) is a specific type of cyclone, like for instance tagliatelli and Spaghetti are types of Pasta. However, in the Southern Hemisphere the term Cyclone is used as a short way of describing a tropical cyclone or a severe tropical cyclone etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am from down under so maybe that can excuse me somewhat. So in essence cyclone is the parent article of tropical cyclone. I am happy for you or someone else removing that section if you think it appropriate. I am basically just trying to clean up good articles with orange cleanup tags so am not advancing a position. It just seemed reasonable that climate change would effect the weather (including cyclones). Maybe it says all it needs to and the expand section tag can be removed. Thanks for your response. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning/Watch tables

@Master of Time, B dash, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, Meow, and Hurricanehink: I feel like a discussion is needed over the edit war that seems to be breaking out, on if we should include the timings of every watch and warning within each of the articles. I personally can see both sides of the coin as I see that it is interesting to include them however, we do have to remember that it is up to each individual nation to issue the watches and warnings. We also have to ask ourselves which ones to include and how to do it (HCCOR's/TCCOR's) anyone? While remembering that in some cases (France/Ireland/UK) they issue watches and warnings but coloured alerts.Jason Rees (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a meteorological blog. It should not include such information which could be very diverse and obsoleted soon. 🐱💬 16:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the advisories should be saved if they are relevant to the storm's article (particularly if the storm was extremely powerful or damaging). Since mistakes or correctly-issued advisories can have a great impact on how many people end up dying in a storm (such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy), it would be very useful to keep the advisories/alerts for the most notable storms. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree with what LightandDark2000 said. No, advisories are not always correct, but that's not the reason to include them anyway. A table of up-to-date / most-correct values is what linking the TCR is for. Master of Time (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jersey Shore#Hurricane Sandy

The section about the effects of Hurricane Sandy on the Jersey Shore lacks totally of sources. Maybe one who is familiar with Sandy could add them. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming review

@Typhoon2013, Meow, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, Atomic7732, Golbez, PoisonCarnival8, Bjones1123, HurricaneCalebN, CooperScience, Yellow Evan, HurricaneDude2016, Typhoon 2017, Cyclonebiskit, Juliancolton, Titoxd, 12george1, and Thegreatdr: @MarioProtIV:

After the furore over the name: Irene being retried for Irma before retired itself and being replaced with Idallia for 2022, I really feel that we need to look at the naming sections worldwide and decide what pieces of trivia we are including. For example at various times over the last couple of days, we have been trying to claim that 2017 time travelled to be before 2005. This was because 2017 had four names retired which as things stand ties 1955, 1995 and 2004 for the second most amount of names retired in a season with 2005 AHS having the record. Except its only a basin record since if you applied that record worldwide: you would find that 97-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS hold the record with 7 names each, while 1991-92 SPAC has 6 names retired. Yes you could argue that AUS/SPAC have lower standards for retirement, but you would be wrong to do so since they are the only two basins bar the Atlantic to consistently retire names. We also have to remember that ideally, we should have someone saying that this is the record rather than us determining it ourselves. As a result of all of this, I feel that we should get rid of the record from 1955, 1995, 2004 and 2017 AHS but keep it in 2005 AHS, but make it clear that it's only a basin record with links added to 1997-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS. I am also loathed to see three level headers for retirement sections and would prefer to include it in the blurb up the top.

While I am on about the topic of naming, I also strongly feel that it is not worth having naming sections, in some our articles where the list rotates, such as the South Pacific and Australian regions. It is also worth noting that within the SPAC we have had seasons such as 1990-91 where only 1 or 2 names have been taken from the main list of names. In these cases, I would prefer to add a few lines on the naming to the seasonal summary section after the season has ended. I also feel that this would be easier for our readers to follow as rather than going through the whole article they can grab the relevant information on the naming before they read the article. These are just my thoughts as the main editor surrounding the tropical cyclone naming articles, and I would be curious to hear other peoples thoughts on either subject which is why i have pinged so many people. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the storm names section from each season would be tedious work, and I feel it would just be a waste of information. It's better to include the entire name list that was used under its own section, with a subsection under it for retirement. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I noticed you only suggested removing the storm names section for certain seasons such as those south pacific cylone seasons. In that case, it would not be a bad idea to move the storm names from those seasons elsewhere. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @CooperScience: You have just reminded me of something else, I wanted to mention and I have tacked it on to the proposal. Im thinking about removing them from NIO and all SHEM articles by including the relevant information in the seasonal summary section, since it is a waste to have them there since the names come from rotating lists.Jason Rees (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The first bit on retired names is a minor wording tweak - just make sure to claim that 2017 tied for the 2nd most names retired in the Atlantic basin only. I'm fine with no TC names in SPAC/AUS seasons although I ask that we be ensure the all the TC naming pages are linked in the respective season articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Linking the pages in NIO and SHEM shouldnt be a problem but im not sure that it is worth mentioning that record and would like to see a source for it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For one, I strongly oppose removing "naming" sections; readers should always know how naming was applied for a particular season, and for consistency the number of names should not matter. Given that "naming" is visible in the table of contents, I do not buy the argument that readers will have a hard time finding it; if you still believe that, just move the naming section to before the storm list. I do strongly agree, however, that we should put a cap on the amount of numerical trivia. In the case of 4 being the second-highest number of retired names in an Atlantic season, there happens to be at least one reliable source (if not others) that corroborate that claim, so that particular claim should stay. We should keep it to the mere basics: 2017 is tied with three other years for the second-most, behind 2005. "Surpassed by" should not be used for years that come after the record but is fine for years that came before – but then only should be stated for that particular year, not the group.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete naming section and include relevant information in “Season summary”. Names that were unused belong on List of historic tropical cyclone names. It’s more important for the reader to know that storms have been named after humans since X year in Y basin. Include retirements there. This will get rid of a fairly useless section. Readers don’t need to know the first year a name was used (such as in Atlantic when a replacement name is first used). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Inflation figures

There's the beginnings of a discussion on inflation figures for damage at WP:ERRORS today. Thoughts? Standard inflation figures generally reflect the prices of consumer goods, not replacement value for capital expenses, agriculture, etc. ... are inflation figures calculated in any specific way for hurricane damage? Also, these figures are wildly different for different countries, and I'm not sure how that factors in. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been a loose consensus to remove the inflation figures, but it still exists in some articles (you'll often find inflation as of 2006 or 2007, when the project was more interested in inflation figures). It's just impossible to compare hurricane damage from the 1950s to now, given how much more development there is. Wealth normalization is one attempt to incorporate population growth into the inflation figures, but that isn't available for every storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Eventually, the project will have to remove the old inflation estimates for consistency purpose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Including inflation seems to come up a lot when outsiders review our GAN's. Honestly I don't find them terribly problematic if inflation is used for the same purpose site wide and I've contemplated using them again when I get back to serious writing once exams are over, so I think this is a good opportunity to get the ball rolling on discussing this issue for the first time in seven years. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with using inflation since we generally do not see it calculated for systems that do not affect America. Even then we would have to figure out how to do it? Take for example Fiji we generally convert the damage totals in FJD to USD if they are not in USD already. This would beg the question do we inflate it before or after the conversion? Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome wagon

It is coming up to the start of the busy season, when we get a lot of new editors, and some (most) of them might not know what they are doing. Let’s not forget that we were all beginners at one point, and some of us old farts retire, we will need to rely on new editing talent. This season, let’s try and get these new editors learning the ropes, and have them feel like a part of the community. If any of you see any new users who seem like they could use some editor assistance, please be patient with them, and if it seems like they really need assistance, feel free to send them to my talk page, where I’ll gladly offer assistance.

Also on this note, if you see any potentially interested editors on Facebook, Twitter, Storm2k, or another online hurricane community, perhaps reach out to them. This project has a lot of good articles that can serve as guides to the new editors, but there are a lot of rules that might scare away some users. With some help from current users, these newbies can hopefully learn the ropes and join this great community.

Make Wikipedia Great Again! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Over on IRC, I was thinking about creating a channel over at Discord, hoping that'll make it easier for new editors join and also create a much easier way to talk and communicate. I wonder if this actually helps.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, Discord has the advantage of saving the chat history after a session is closed. — Iunetalk 03:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is pretty important, since we can't log publicly conversations over on IRC. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm kinda old school and like IRC. Discord really isn't much different although it's kinda annoying to use on a computer. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Much more easier to use anywhere else. There are a few minor gripes on the desktop version, but it is far easier to setup than the usual IRC client. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

1987 and 1993 PTS

Can someone who uploads images do me a favor and upload some satellite pics from HURSAT or GIBBS of some WPAC tropical cyclones? The old images from DT were deleted a while back, and I want to send a few of my old WPAC articles to GAN and don't want this holding it back. Specifically, 1987 and 1993 PTS are lacking in images. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes

I made a sandbox for what I think (and Jason Rees disagrees) could be a useful article (and eventually also C2, C1, and TS). We already have articles on C4 and C5 hurricanes. After being against it 10 years ago (sorry Julian) I now think this sort of article would be helpful, especially for insurance companies, governments, and statisticians alike. I don't have too much time these days to edit, but one of my goals this year is new user retention. Seeing how many hours an article like this takes, it could be a good collaborative effort, especially for some Wikipedians who are eager to edit but don't know what to do.

The following articles could/should be created:

  • I was torn whether this should be List of super typhoons, but seeing as that term is used by the U.S. military and not the official agency for the western Pacific, I think we should use the JMA's terminology violent typhoon, which has winds of over 105 knots.

Stay awesome Wikipedians! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on the proposed lists for AUS, SPAC, SWIO, and NIO. Violent typhoon isn't widely used at all, and super typhoon is grossly problematic since that has a different definition by the JTWC, PAGASA, CMA, ect. As for the Category 3 page, is that gonna be anything more than a list of storms and a rehash from stuff listed in more broader articles? YE Pacific Hurricane 23:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it will exactly. There will be some redundancy, but no more than List of Florida hurricanes. I think the information could be useful. In the end (WPTC 4.0?), it would be great to know how many deaths or how much destruction each categorized tropical cyclones have caused in each basin. That is supremely useful information, and the info is basically already there in the season articles. It would be useful to have in all basins, each category. User:Jason Rees and I were discussing having a general Tropical cyclone impact database. This article would be the formation of this exact article, a collaborative effort worthy of note in my opinion. After each basin has the classified storms in a list, there can be a general "list of Atlantic tropical cyclones of unknown intensity" to highlight deaths and destruction. In the end, Wikipedia should be able to say (with reasonable verification), on the page for Effects of tropical cyclones, that tropical cyclones have caused Y deaths and $Z trillion in damage since the first recorded tropical cyclone in 975 AD. That should be an official project goal, IMO at least. I know I haven't been too active, but I've been thinking about what it means to edit Wikipedia in 2018 - at least 61 million children in the United States have been born since Wikipedia has been around. I think it's a worthy long-term goal, and it can at least identify where our major areas missing are. I am so proud of the countless editing hours of Wikipedians about tropical cyclones since 2001 (especially since 2005 when User:Jdorje created the project). So, let's aim for something big, before the next apocalypse hoax. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, two things here. As for the Category 3 hurricanes, if it contains unique information subject to the topic itself, great, but if it's not more that could be covered in a category or wikidata, then I don't fee it should exist. List of Florida hurricanes similarly is fine because it outline the criteria I defined above. As for some form of a TC impact database, sure. Just start filling out the deaths/damage info for Pacific typhoon season, Pacific hurricane[, Atlantic hurricane season and similar pages, and then work from there. Hardest problem is sourcing of course though. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
You don’t think it would be useful having a single list of every major hurricane (peaking as a C3)? That list includes Sandy, Otto, and Ophelia. A Category wouldn’t get every storm (some don’t have articles) and people don’t use Wikidata as much as Wikipedia. I also think it could be a good project for new (inexperienced) users to work on. I’ve already reached out to Storm2k, where one user User:NotSparta has joined). Sooner or later we need to get some new editors, so this project could include users new and old. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Useful? Sure. Encyclopedic/redundant? I'm not fully convinced. To be honest, and I'm sure I've told you this in private numerous time, but I've long felt that it was best that new editors were to focus on recent storms and seasons, where sources are easy to come by, leaving older ones for us veterans. But seasons/storms aside, you know what you be a better project? If they tried finishing stuff like List of X hurricanes (X being a location). I'd point out on a somewhat related note that we get new editors pretty frequently, and many like Typhoon2013 and Mario have gotten better over the years, it seems that they struggle staying committed long-term, and aside from the occasional GAN once in a blue moon, never really spit out stuff at a brisk pace in the way we and GC and others use to back in our heyday. Honestly, I don't think we've done a good job really (outside of maybe late 2015/early 2016 and summer 2017) ever since I got burnt out midway through HS back in late 2014 at mass producing GA's and GT's. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
← Nobody uses Wikidata, and overlap between categories and lists is very much encouraged, despite the long-debunked "redundancy" argument. Further to that, there's absolutely nothing that says content must be strictly "encyclopedic"; the project incorporates many aspects of "almanacs and gazetteers." We need to ease up on the constant hang-wringing when someone proposes something that doesn't perfectly fit into the (aging and rather stale) project model. I'd love to see some of those redlinks turn blue. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ive been thinking about these Category lists over the last 24 hours and can see that they woud be good to do, however, I would want them kept to the basins that we have at the moment without any overlaps. This way we could add them to the button bars and it would make more sense IMO as we wouldn't end up with 1000 odd Category 1 tropical cyclones in one article by combining Aus/SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent Idea JR! This is a worthy goal for WPTC 4.0 (is that still a thing YE? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Like have a novobox of a list of all Cat 1's/2's/3's? Someone do a test to see what that would look like as it's hard for me to imagine. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yelllow Evan: I just meant putting links to the various lists, on to the bottom of the button bars we already have.Jason Rees (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Eventually, we should be able to expand the "Typhoons/Cyclones/Hurricanes in Location X" categories into lists, which is a much easier way to compare storms that strike an area than going through all the storms and looking at their infoboxes. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's not miss List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 09:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
And I've started that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 11:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Great! Best of luck. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclone

Just an FYI that Draft:2018 Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclone has been submitted to AfC is anyone would like to comment on it's notability/suitability as an article. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The draft above was accepted, so there's a discussion to merge it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Unisys archives

Hi all, as you may know, the URL weather.unisys.com/hurricane/archive is no longer working since they upgraded their website. To access the advisories contained therein, please use radar.duxpond.com/hurricane/archive instead. Damien4794 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Damien4794: for letting us know about the Unisys archive - I personally had no idea about them upgrading their website and moving the archives. As a result, I have decided to copy your message to the tropical cyclone project page so more people can see it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Track maps

It seems that we haven't a trackmap for Carlotta and the season map shows only half-Bud. I tried to make it myself, but I don't have the needed ressources. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded Carlotta's track yesterday, and I'll update the season map later this morning. :) — Iunetalk 13:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Iune: Would you be willing to do any historical tracks at all? Jason Rees (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course. :) Do you have any tracks you'd like created? — Iunetalk 19:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasnt thinking of any systems in particular, there are a few projects of mine that would benefit from a track map though. List of retired South Pacific cyclone names, List of off-season South Pacific tropical cyclones, List of off-season Australian region tropical cyclones, List of Category 4 South Pacific cyclones, List of Category 5 South Pacific cyclones. However, these are not urgent and are more of a wish. :) Jason Rees (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/2006 Pacific hurricane season

This is a Featured Topic, but the talk page for Hurricane Daniel (2006) claims it's a Good Topic. I'm reporting this here because I don't know what kind of bookkeepping is involved when the change is made (and because it will be at TFA in July). - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gamerpro64 and Juhachi: Can you double check this when you get a chance please? Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a good topic, but a featured topic at one point when the standards were a bit lower. I reckon a few articles could be merged to keep it as a featured topic - Bud, Ileana, Kristy. They're all a bit heavy on the prose side, but the exact same information could be written in two paragraphs each for the storm section. @Yellow Evan: - thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm tired of looking at those articles in general, so probably yes but maybe axe Sergio instead of Kristy? I'll start condensing them once I'm done with my current article. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@YE: - Sergio has more that's not met history than Kristy, which I think is more valuable to the project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean what good does a couple of paragraphs of non-MH content do if most of it can be condensed in a sentence or two as is the case in Sergio? Kristy meanwhile is at least 12kb, while Aletta/Bud/Ileana/Sergio all under 9kb, so that batch would be easier to shove down. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:WIAFT criterion 3(a)(i) states that at least 50% of the articles in a topic have to be featured for it to be a featured topic, so 8 featured articles if all 15 were kept, or 12 articles (including the 6 already featured) to make it a featured topic. So if you want it to be a featured topic, merge 3 good articles.--十八 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick update - I have merged the content from Aletta, Bud, and Ileana, so I propose mergers for all three. Kristy and Sergio seem a bit more substantive compared to these three. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Aletta

Hello, and I don't know necessarily what to do since I'm a new editor and I'd like to propose an article idea to see if it is worth creation between all of us and our is Hurricane Aletta of 2018 Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally, the project doesn't do collaborations for storms that didn't affect land. The article would mostly just be about Aletta's meteorological history, which, while interesting, might not be article-worthy. If you're interested in strong Pacific hurricanes, we could use an article on List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes, based off of List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes or List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. It'll take some time finding all of the storms, and noting if they have any impacts (damage/deaths). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't someone have a sandbox for that? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes - yea actually, and it's almost done! OK, so I guess someone has to do Category 2 hurricanes :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I was wandering as people had made articles in the Atlantic over storms that didn't impact land such as Jose from 2017 which is mostly its meteotological history. Anyways but sure I'll create the Cat2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Jose has a much longer MH than Aletta ever would. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of that I've just added 1971's C3 Pacific hurricanes so I'm pretty much done with listing out all the storms. Going a little off topic, but does anyone know why 1971's Francene is listed as Francesca in HURDAT? I'm assuming that's a typo for now because 1971's Monthly Weather Review lists it as Francene. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_37&oldid=1146830844"