This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Currently the de-facto template for the storms in season articles is ((infobox hurricane small)). This template has a few significant problems suggesting a redesign.

1. Repetition: it is always used next to a level 3 header with the storm's common name.
2. Inability to display more than RSMC info; only the SSHS category is shown. This is a particular problem for Australian storms.

I've created a new template using the fundamental layout of ((Infobox Hurricane)) and have an extensive test selection here. Due to the removal of padding around the image, the new template is actually smaller vertically even with two colour bars. It also uses the same parameters and scripting as Infobox Hurricane. The only thing of any substantial value lost is the ability to list all the storm's names in the header; but personally I think it is a change worth making.

Comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. We can live without not being able to list all the names in the header, and this solves the "single number dilemma" we had with the old template. --Coredesat 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather liked the single number in the corner, but meh... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is how to deal with Cyclone Larry?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence the meh. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pacific typhoon season#Other storms This section in the typhoon articles is very clumsy. One way to resolve it is to put an optional note indicating where the measurements came from instead of calling it JTWC Tropical Storm Blah. Good kitty (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice! While we're migrating we could finally finish deprecating ((storm pics)). --Ajm⁸¹ 06:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-on: Further hacking at this deprecates ((infobox hurricane current)) too (in season articles), it also automatically switches the correct temp symbol now. I'll hack at ((Infobox Hurricane)) to add in the current functionality for storm articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Its live at ((Infobox Hurricane Small)). I've added sketchy documentation. Note also I have removed current functionality - making this template do too much is a bad idea.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NHEM Disimbiguation Page

I Feel That it would be benefical, if we had a disimbiguation page, that Contained Links to the Seasonal Pages on the main pages and all of the Advisories on the Talk Page, as im sure that other Editors do not realise when we have Storms in the Indian ocean and a storm at the same time in the WPAC for example. Also we have a Disimbiguation page for the SHEM storms so why not the NHEM Storms ? Jason Rees 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone make a version of this map with one of those Blue Marble maps? Also remember to include TCWC Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea (Solomon Sea and Gulf of Papua). Good kitty 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just made changes to 11 articles: the current Cuban top 10 rainiest tropical cyclones (including our newest GA article) plus the ST of 1982. If a tropical cyclone went anywhere near any of the countries on the list, it is a good idea to see if there is a relevant rainfall amount on this list that may or may not be within the NHC/JMA/etcetera TCR. This list is very well referenced, in some cases using references from the impacted country's national weather service/weather bureau, which is as good as you can get. Thank you for your time and attention. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - good idea, and keep up the good work. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on IRC and a little bit of browsing has revealed that a problem has occurred with the infoboxes on an Australian article. More specifically the 2004-05 Australian region cyclone season. It seems that some infoboxes are being given a SSHS cat based on 10-min mean in some places and 1-min mean in others. Here are the problems on this one page:

• This tropical low has been rated as a Tropical Storm when its 10-min mean is only 30kt but its 1 min-mean was 35kt with the JWTC
• [1] has been put down in the info box as being a Tropical Storm when its clearly a cat 3 (assuming SSHS scale for 10 min) but this might be just an error.

There may be other errors but i have yet to get a chance to look.

The questions i would like to raise are:

• whether firstly should the infoboxes be all SSHS when this is something that is applied purely as a wikipedia basis and instead follow the scales used by the offical warning centers.

• If SSHS is going to be used in other basins should the official 10-min mean be used for SSHS or a 1-min mean value?

• If 1 min-mean values are going to used, should then be the official 10 min be converted to 1-min mean or the unofficial JWTC values be used. Seddon69 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wat has been going on in the Wpac as well - i have been told that where it says intensity on the Infobox is where the offical Data belongs (ie JMA/BOM/NADI/ETC) and the Number Cat is where the JTWC Data Belongs. Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a real dilemma. I think if SSHS is going to be used, it should be used with the 1-min winds, as the scale was meant for 1-min winds. Additionally, we should be careful what we call a tropical storm, as not every basin has the same level. That said, what do we use for the SSHS? On one hand, SSHS is used by the NHC, and the JTWC is closer to the NHC than the JMA is; thus, since JTWC does use 1-min winds, it might seem logical to use JTWC's winds, since using SSHS in non-NHC basins is unofficial anyway. On the other hand, it would be slightly more official if we used the converted 10-min values from the local RSMC. I'm leaning more toward JTWC's values, I think, though my mind has vacillated enough for me not to trust my opinion. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This came up in an IRC talk today after I noticed (again) Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging#Orphaned_or_dual_disambiguations. There are a few underlying issues.

And another bit of background: I realized the other day that our disambiguation pages ("TC dab") are actually set index articles. This is a specific type of disambiguation, with specific guidelines of its own that allow the article to be more than a simple disambiguation is normally expected to be.

We should link storms from the main name article; for instance Wilma should have links to the storms named Wilma. This is not a set index article however and does not need to give details or link to all 19 named storms when there's already a set index article (i.e. wikiproject disambiguation page) to do so. TC dab articles should exist whenever a name is used 3 or more types; when a name is used only once a single link is necessary; the only problem then is when a name is used twice and both articles (or season articles) must be linked.

In my opinion when a name is only used twice and at least one of the storms has its own article, there should not be a disambiguation article. A simple ((dablink)) at the start of the main article, with sufficient redirects, will do (hink has an alternate suggestion here, allowing the link to be included in the "see also" if there is low possibility for ambiguity as with cross-basin storms). When a name is used three or more times a TC dab should be made.

Hmm, I think I had some more thoughts on the matter but nothing comes to mind now. For the moment I'm going to fix wilma (as discussed on the merge page).

— jdorje (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Last season in the WPac I usually created a dab page when a name was used for a second time. This has created several of the sort of dab pages you talk about, such as Typhoon Chanchu (disambiguation). The reason I created these sorts of pages was because (usually) when the system formed I had no idea what the second system with that name would do. Hence, I agree that duodabs should be PRODed if one system is retired. I disagree on twice-used names where one has an article but is not retired. I believe that Tropical Storm Melissa is an example; the recent Tropical Storm Melissa (2007) has an article; there was also a Supertyphoon Melissa in 1994. I don't expect the name Melissa to be retired and I don't think anyone here seriously thinks so either. I don't think that page should be deleted. Basically, delete the duodabs where one storm is retired but keep the other. Should this result in new ones in this situation, they can always be PRODed after retirement of the name due to the second storm using it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if a dab page exists for a name used only twice, but the name is still in the rotation, it should still be kept. Also, given that they are "set index articles", my personal preference would be for the dab pages to be linked in the see also section. First, I doubt there is much ambiguity in the page Hurricane Dennis (1981) for other storms named Dennis, and secondly, I don't like how list of notable tropical cyclones is the standard link for the see also section. Here are dabs for names used only twice, with one being retired.

• Typhoon Bilis
• Typhoon Chanchu (disambiguation)
• Typhoon Durian (disambiguation)
• Hurricane Georges (disambiguation)
• Hurricane Isabel (disambiguation)
• Typhoon Saomai (disambiguation)
• Typhoon Xangsane (disambiguation)

I'd like if those were redirected to the retired articles, with the other storm linked in the See Also section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For a while I've been wanting to make a set of conversion templates for updating active tropical cyclones. I believe I have finally come up with a workable system.

So take a look at it. If you find any errors, tell me and I will see what I can do. Give some comments please on if you think we should use this template and if so, what name should it have. The shorter the better as it will be on the page many times. ---CWY2190^TC 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Unfortunately, I'm wondering whether it is redundant with Template:Convert. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A few reasons why I think it is needed. First, you can't round to the nearest 5 units like we do with winds and distance. Second, unless I'm mistaken, Template:Convert can't convert something like this: xxx nm (xxx km, xxx mi). You can only do xxx nm (xxx km). ---CWY2190^TC 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the differences. Well, it seems to work well. What about Template:WPTC convert, something simple like that, for a name? Also, one thing - is there a way so it does not wikilink every time? Having links to mph 20 times in one page would get a little excessive. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is one issue. Plus if you look at movement in the info box, it adds an unneeded break. ---CWY2190^TC 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn, have you tried fixing it? Or, perhaps, we could ask for help? I'm sure there is a group of editors with the know-how to help perfect it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a fix. In stead of typing "west-northwest at ((WPTC convert=NHCspeed|number=8))", you can type "((WPTC convert=NHCspeed|direction=WNW|number=8))" and get the same thing, but it won't put the break in. It will link to boxing the compass.

There's been some discussion on the 2006 AHS talk page, regarding ACE and how it constitutes Original research. We were talking about it on the IRC, and I wanted some opinions on it. In my opinion, I don't see a need to list ACE for each storm. However, I wouldn't mind seeing ACE still listed for season totals, as I have seen an NHC or NOAA document that lists ACE for each season back to 1851. Any opinions? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it. ---CWY2190^TC 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I personally think that ACE values are only useful for the season, here is a link that lists ACE values by season. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ACE calculation being OR. See here and here. The first has a question specifically about ACE. The second and part of the first are about using published data and formulas.

Also, this sets a bad precedent in my view. If we accept ACE calculation as being OR, we might have to consider "derived facts" OR. For example, I am not aware of any specific source that gives a list of longest-lasting Pacific hurricanes. The best-track info implies how long each system lasted, but to get the longest-lasting ones some digging must be done. If those and analogous facts are considered, this WikiProject had might as well get ready for Miss Slashiline, Juliancutting, and ORgonehink as we go on a rampage, removing perceived "OR" from articles.

Finally, at least in the context of the 2006 AHS, this is a moot discussion as a source from the NOAA/NCDC giving 2006 ACE by storm exists. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The source I gave lists that it was last updated on October, so maybe it uses the real-time advisories. But I maintain my view that ACE is not OR. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The way ACE is used in literature, it is mainly a yard stick to compare seasons against each other. As for whether it constitutes OR, maybe it should be brought up in one of the more wikipedia-wide pages and see what they think. I can see reasons for and against it being considered original research. If it is, the rainfall totals I use for Haiti in the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country article would also be considered OR. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That same page Miss Madeline referred to, exists as well for year 2005 and 2004, both of them update in Nov. 2007. Other years I didn't check, but I don't see OR. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have a NOAA page that gives ACE values, then we can always use those. Failing back, I'd say that the ACE formula is simple enough, so it doesn't really fit the OR definition, but sourced data is always better if present. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ACE values are certainly not OR, any more than the track maps are. My personal opinion however is that the importance wikipedia articles attach to these values is completely unjustified. No other source besides us would give ACE data a top-level section in a discussion of a hurricane season. — jdorje (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we should change that then. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How about just including the value in the infobox? Storm ACE could be included perhaps in the small hurricane infobox? that way we cut down on the redundancy of it having its own section but still provides the information. Seddon69 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a viable solution if we wished to keep the stats. I guess it comes down if we want to keep them for individual storms or not. Though I'm not a particularly big fan of the ACE, I wouldn't mind seeing them in the small hurricane infobox, though I'd prefer if that parameter was optional (so it wouldn't break the boxes from now until they were all finished, as well as so they wouldn't appear in the other basins). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking on the IRC, and some users expressed some interest in a collaboration in getting season articles to FT status. Seasons are natural FT's, such as the 2003 AHS. We were thinking of starting with the 2006 AHS, since it is almost finished. 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season should be featured, and ideally as should Hurricane Ernesto (2006), since it was the most damaging storm of the season. Hurricane Gordon (2006) and Hurricane Isaac (2006) would have to become GA's, though they're already close, and largely in need of some looking over and copyediting. Some other seasons we were thinking include:

1. 1950 Atlantic hurricane season
2. 1969 Atlantic hurricane season
3. 1979 Atlantic hurricane season
4. 1985 Atlantic hurricane season
5. 1995 Atlantic hurricane season
6. 1998 Atlantic hurricane season
7. 1999 Atlantic hurricane season
8. 2000 Atlantic hurricane season
9. 2001 Atlantic hurricane season
10. 2002 Atlantic hurricane season
11. 2004 Atlantic hurricane season
12. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
13. 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
14. 2007 Atlantic hurricane season
15. 1997 Pacific hurricane season
16. List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

This is a long-term project, but I'm sure once it gets going, the interest will grow, and it'll go faster. So, would anyone be interested in such a collaboration? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is also somewhere on the way to being a potential featured topic. The main list is an FL. Ioke, Kenna, and John are FA's. Linda, Elida, and Ava are GA's. Hernan, Guillermo, and the 1959 Mexico Hurricane are start. Gilma, Emilia, Patsy would have to be created and them and the starts would have to be brought up to GA class at least. Along with at least two more FA's (in terms of importance those would be Linda and the Mexico storm), and then we have another FT. Although Category 5 Pacific hurricanes is not a season, in terms of being a featured topic it is as "close" as some of the ones Hurricanehink mentioned. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, great idea. I know someone is working on a sandbox for Emilia, and Gilma shouldn't be too hard. Patsy is another story. Since it was so short and so long ago, it might not be possible; I checked the AMS site, and it had minimal info on Patsy. But, you never know. There might be enough for a minimal article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Who has the Emilia sandbox? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CapeVerdeWave. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried searching for "Hurricane Emilia" using the wikisearch in user namespace only and didn't find it. The only one I got was a redirect from one Mitchazenia's old sandboxes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could clean up Gordon and Isaac a bit.TheNobleSith (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Would people here have time to have a look at these threads?

• Talk:Hurricane Katrina#More updates needed
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Long-term updating of articles

Thanks. My question specifically would be whether the members of this project feel it is their responsibility to keep the article updated, or whether that would be something more for the (less active) Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management to deal with? In practice, the updates will be done by whichever individual editor (including me) finds the time, but considering the general case might help for future things like this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Anyone can update any article, whether or not they belong to this project. Most of these articles are under multiple wikiprojects, so it's really up to whoever from whatever project gets a chance to update an article first. Otherwise, wouldn't there be a WP:OWN issue? I'd rather not have the updating of articles turn into the circus that global climate change has become. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My main point (not really raised fully here) has been confirmed by Titoxd's response here. My concern is that people are actually avoiding updating the article because they fear (probably rightly) that partial attempts at updates would imbalance the article. I also suspect that people are more wary of doing this updating because it is a featured article, and they are waiting for an "expert" or someone with enough time, to come along and do the updating. In other words, rather than updates taking place the normal way for Wikipedia, the achievement of featured article status has contributed to impeding further updates. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's why some of the former FAs and GAs have gone into disrepair over the past couple years, both within the tropical subproject and meteorology project. Myself, along with a few others, worked for a couple weeks in trying to get Ivan, which was briefly an A class article, "up" to what is currently considered a GA. Personally, I don't see an article's status stopping me from updating the article, especially if it has slipped in stature. You just need to be careful that the sources you pick are the most authoritative available. We must always remember that we should be bold with updates to articles, regardless of class. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a significant backlog of tropical cyclone articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was recently looking around and noticed the loss of track maps after Man-yi in the 2007 Pacific typhoon season. I think I remember hearing someone saying something about some utility not supplying data points anymore. In addition, most current NIO, SWIO, AUS, and SPAC systems have no tracks. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Tracks tells how to use the program, but where location of the data that's used to generate them (like the WPAC)? The JTWC? Do we have to wait for them to update their best tracks? Is the JMA best track in the correct format that the program accepts? If it's possible, I might be able to use the program to make them myself and, if needed, manually enter data points. All I need to have is the program used to generate them and the location of the data. Thanks. -- RattleMan 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend sending Ajm81 or Jdorje an email. --Coredesat 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After reverting new user Potapych twice on Template:Storm colour and noticing he is working on a rather problematic replacement for Template:Infobox hurricane small, I have to bring this back up. We sort of discussed a replacement for IHS, ((Infobox Hurricane Small)), here, and it looked like we were reaching some agreement, but nothing ever came of this. This version of IHS would solve some problems with the current version, such as the fact that the current IHS doesn't work for all basins and is unable to represent some official data.

Potapych's version is similar to the one Nilfanion created (the one I linked), but causes various nomenclature and redundancy issues, and uses a color scheme that has not been discussed and has no consensus (which is the main reason why I reverted his edits on Template:Storm colour). My suggestion is that we deprecate ((Infobox hurricane small)) and replace all instances of it with ((Infobox Hurricane Small)). --Coredesat 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Nilfanion and he sent me an example of how the template is coded; it's similar to Template:Infobox Hurricane. See Template talk:Infobox Hurricane Small. --Coredesat 22:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the template on 1915 Atlantic hurricane season to further show how it works. --Coredesat 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for this infobox to be used. Good work Nilf :) Seddon69 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been having a play around with the infobox here. Using some details which have come from Hurricane Katrina making sure it works on all the Basins. The only problem i have faced is the South west indian ocean, which has not got a code that is consistant as i have tried using the code on the current season page and Cyclone Ivans page. once this minior problem is sorted i think this infobox can be rolled out IMO. Jason Rees (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

'Type' is not capitalized, and there are no Category 5 'typhoons' (Only JTWC would call it Category 5 and they would designate it a 'super typhoon' [2]). I knew people would mess this part up, especially since it is not returned by the template. Potapych (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. That infobox has several bugs in it. One of the scales is fubar'd, another one (in the SWIO) gets it really confused in some circumstances. It is just incomplete. However, you did NO research before reverting the first one, and this 'consensus' here was reached without any awareness of these problems. Since I had never finished the other one, you cannot criticize it for 'nomenclature and redundancy issues' (please explain that. The new one you have been adding doesn't even use nomenclature consistently). I see someone has already gone and made a mess of many season articles. I'm not working on it anymore or adding to this project. When a project gets old, there's always some busybody around trying to protect their territory. Potapych (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The current Atlantic storm paths during the 1915–1920 period are outdated. HURDAT recently reanalyzed all six seasons. Intensities and tracks were adjusted, while additional undocumented tropical storms were added. The new results for 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1920 can be found here. The changes have been officially incorporated into the Atlantic hurricane database. I recently left a note on Nilfanion's Wikimedia Commons talk page, but that person never responded. The same case can be said for Ajm81. Regardless, can anyone update the tracks via the new data? It would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, can anyone (jdorje?) offer advice about the track generator? Hopefully, it can be operated without some of the requirements. The lack of updated tracks in Commons is starting to affect the Atlantic TC articles. For example, an anonymous IP user recently changed a statement in the 1917 Pinar del Río hurricane article. "North-eastern Caribbean" relies on the old HURDAT data. The reanalyzed HURDAT indicates the cyclone formed further south and east. The map clearly shows cyclogenesis over the eastern (not north-eastern) Caribbean.

In a nutshell, someone needs to update the Atlantic track maps. I apologize (to all) if I have been unintentionally impatient. CVW (Talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008

Isn't that going to be hard to accomplish without the main HURDAT source on the historic part of the NHC webpage not updated as of yet? I understand the HRD page concerning the reanalysis has been updated, but HURDAT has not been formally updated yet. I know the "working" best track for storms in 2007 is nearly final, but until they address Erin through the TCR and/or the late December subtropical system, they are not going to formally update HURDAT for the teens or 2007. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Dean track and other non-Erin storm paths feature updated tracks from the TCRs. For example, Dean did not attain Category 5 status in the eastern Caribbean Sea until it was confirmed in the post-seasonal TCR. That change is reflected in the Dean track map. Additionally, a recent chart on the TPC's site is updated through 2007. Note Humberto's landfall. I believe someone can utilize the new HURDAT data and upload new individual tracks for 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1920 seasons. The data can be manually updated. CVW (Talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008

Can anyone respond to my points? Thanks. CVW (Talk) 23:50, 6 March 2008

I haven't tried using the tracking map/chart program, so I won't be of much help to you. There, a response. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As Coredesat told me in an above topic, "I would recommend sending Ajm81 or Jdorje an email." -- RattleMan 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this is a personal question, but what is their email addresses? Are you referring to messages on their talk pages? CVW (Talk) 02:00, 7 March 2008

Use Special:Emailuser. Jdorje and Ajm81. -- RattleMan 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The tracks updated on the main NHC page on March 11. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Look familiar? Scroll down to the section about a certain tropical cyclone and compare it with this old version of one of our articles. Now compare their track map with our old map of California TC breakpoints.

Looks like the US Government has used us again. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I love it. Now that's what I called being featured. Too bad they couldn't give you credit for writing it! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We've all written it. I also tipped the Signpost. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice guys. Too bad it's not copyrighted. You could probably sue for them doing that. Or, you know, something like that. Maybe. I've been off for a few weeks, but will get back to contributing tomorrow.TheNobleSith (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be copyrighted? It's a .gov page. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to create an article for Tropical Storm Debbie (1965) tomorrow.TheNobleSith (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok,noticed someone else already has such an article in the works. Will find something else to do.TheNobleSith (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How Do I make a death table for a specific storm (Charley 1998 in this case)? Is there a template I use, or do I need a specific program or what? Also, I believe Charley 1998 is approaching B-Class. What do you think?TheNobleSith (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a table is needed for Charley, since deaths only occurred in Texas and Mexico. For the future, though, I'd recommend basing the table off of the one on Hurricane Isabel (if you want both damage and deaths, specifying direct from indirect deaths), or the one on Hurricane Floyd as something simpler (for just deaths). All you have to do is copy it from the article, and adjust accordingly. The article is getting there, but it needs some more info (such as Mexican info, and some more Texas info would be good). Keep up the good work, though. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did say "approaching" LOL. Thanks for your help!TheNobleSith (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blind carbon copied this call for action on the Meterology WikiProject, and I thought I'd post it here too.

A TFD discussion I started for the ((HurricaneWarning)) and ((StormWatch)) template (which tells people specifically to get information from other sites, complete with a big bold ATTENTION, which I think violates WP:NDA) has led to major improvements into a new similar template I created called ((Current disaster)). But we could use some more input on this. Some improvements I've done include being able to specifiy what disaster or weather event the template is for, and other options. If you have any comments about implementing this in place of the 2 other templates, think we could discuss it here and on ((current disaster))'s talk page? I was asked to discuss this with the Meteorology and Tropical Cyclone WikiProjects. ViperSnake151 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Per a little discussion on categories for discussion, a user realized we really do have a lot of categories for US hurricane articles. Most of them really are useless, as a storm impacting Alabama is most likely also going to affect Mississippi. So, rather than have a category for every state, I propose we limit the number of categories to nine for the United States, with Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii each getting their own (the latter two due to being isolated from other areas). So, for the remainder, I'm imagining they would match up with the designations on the HPC rainfall site. It doesn't have to be that, but it's neatly defined, and relevant to our project. Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It could work...though I actually like the current state categories myself. That way, someone on Wikipedia could look up storms which impacted individual states. What about using regional categories only when applicable, but otherwise using state categories for storms which impact one state? Or...just use the state category of the state with the greatest impact from the cyclone? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that we need to change the state categories. While it is true that storms are large phenomena, replacing state categories with regional categories makes it more difficult to list storms that affect one particular state. If a tropical storm affects Alabama, it may not affect Texas, and vice versa; however, placing both storms in the same category just clumps storms in categories large enough to be useless. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• What is wrong with having appropriate categories to categorize things? We have some WP editors who get sick whenever they see a article with lots of categories, but there is nothing in WP policies or guidelines that say that many categories are a bad thing or they should be deleted whenever they are found. I categorized many of these articles, and I did so by reading the text of the articles to determine which states were impacted. Editors should read the articles before theorizing about their categories. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. That seems like enough consensus. OK, so it makes sense not to group them together. However, Thegreatdr brought up a potential solution to overcategorization, if that even is a problem, by limiting the categories to just the areas of greatest impact. Any thoughts on that? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a whole 'nother can of worms. First we would have to define what a significant impact would be, and I'd hate to have anything similar to a notability debate over something as trivial as categorization. We would also have to consider whether a storm that caused a large amount of damage in one area, yet caused an exorbitant amount of destruction in another would be listed on both. Also, what do we do with storms that don't cause significant damage anywhere, but still affect regions that are not affected by storms frequently (Kathleen comes to mind).

Overall, I think there are enough headaches with the solution, and there is not even an agreement on whether we have a problem... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn it Tito, why are you always right? OK, so answer this question, since you're 2 for 2 in this section. Should the category for tropical cyclones that impacted Georgia be Category:Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes or Category:Georgia hurricanes? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it there. After all, most of the categories involving GA have the parenthetical disambiguation in their titles (and heck, even the state's article is located at Georgia (U.S. state) instead of Georgia, so I don't think it would hurt anything to keep the parentheses there. We never know... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a simple proposal for the dab pages in storm articles. Rather than having a dablink at the top of an article, I propose moving them to the see also section. I've done that for a few articles, and I think it'd be rather harmless. This is what would show up.

• Other tropical cyclones named Barry

The benefit for this is that the dab would be the default link in the See also section. Currently, it is List of notable tropical cyclones, or the basin one. However, certainly a minimal tropical storm doesn't need a link to notable tropical cyclones. One more thing. I doubt there is confusion when the title has the year in it. I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but surely no one at Tropical Storm Barry (2007) was expecting the storm from 2001. Any comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work, but there will be case-by-case scenarios in which we probably will need a hatnote. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time or inclination to do this myself at the moment, but Hurricane Ella needs to be a disambig page - right now it redirects to the 1958 AHS, when there was at least one in 1978. --Golbez (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If not, consider starting one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.23 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First for me. What's the criteria? Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 07:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally the review has always been pretty inactive, and the assigning of A-class has happened by editors who thought the article was good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the handy templates on environmental modeling systems, meteorological instruments and variables, I've been building a new template of numerical weather and climate models at Template:Weather and climate models. I've mostly not included tropical cyclone/hurricane models in this template, although that could be changed (particularly for operational models). For discussion on this and other things, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#Numerical model template. Evolauxia (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A current Featured List candidate, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, received some comments about whether to use ((main)) instead of ((hurricane main)) for season articles and season lists. Most if not all of the season articles use Template:hurricane main, although it is not compliant with the MoS. I brought the discussion here in hopes to get some kind of consensus as to whether to continue using hurricane main over main. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Links for storm articles use hurricane main, and other articles get the regular main, as follows.

That is how we've been doing it, and it's better to maintain consistency throughout the project. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my fault by the way. If, indeed, the template is used across all articles then simply modifying the template so it isn't bold, and thus in-line with the manual of style, then the articles will remain consistent across the project and, indeed, consistent across all projects. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for your interest (should the manual of style ring your bell), MOS:BOLD#Boldface talks a little about emphasising and when not to use boldface. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't really go too much into the linking. There has been a consensus to keep the storm article name links bolded, and I agree with that. The bold link is to draw your attention to the link, so you know there is a sub-article. A plain ((main)) link is rather plain, and I don't think would be appropriate for the season articles. The storm articles make up the season, so it is more than just a ((see also)) sort of link. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too fussed, but overuse of bold in inappropriate circumstances should be avoided. But not to worry! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think ((main)) might be more MoS compliant. Bolding usually indicates the title of the article when used. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's where I'm coming from. The hurricane version isn't MOS compliant... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the MOS talks about this specific issue to much, and I don't think it's too much of a problem. There aren't many other types of articles where the sub-articles are as integrated as the top-level article, which is why I think the bold linkings are appropriate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still confused as to why this single project doesn't use the Wikipedia-wide ((main)) template, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, because a while back, the ((main)) template wasn't stable, and several editors in the project didn't like the non-bolding, so they were essentially boycotting the template. To solve that situation, somebody created ((hurricane main)) without the bold, and it stuck. I'm not really sure whether anybody really cares about the bold anymore (although Hink as usual brings good points), but this template also avoids the ParserFunctions mess that is present in ((main)), and allows for finer control of hatnote content. The latter reason is why I use it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed when adding the tropical cyclone rainfall climatology article today that someone had created a box, with articles-yet-to-be created such as tropical cyclone wind climatology, tropical cyclone pressure climatology, and tropical cyclone storm surge climatology included. There have been studies relating central pressure to wind, but what kind of information were people thinking that these additional climatologies should include? How many TDs normally become TSs or HU/TY/intense tropical cyclones? By their own admission and lack of unnamed TD information within HURDAT, NHC technically does not maintain a tropical depression climatology, even if they've published articles for tropical depressions from most years since the 1960s (minus most of the 1980s). Storm surge is highly variable across very small distances of the coastline due to a variety of effects, and I'm not sure what a storm surge climatology would look like. What do you all think? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not so sure I agree with that box. First, I don't like the idea of having a box in which all articles but one are redlinks. But more importantly, I don't think those articles would be feasible, for the reasons you listed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, they're just very impractical articles. Things like storm surge are such irregular and rare events I'm not even sure they could be called climatological. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a navigation box isn't very useful if it consists of one viable article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't any new pictures for storms be named one way? For example, if Cyclone A forms and there is a picture can't you name it like Image: Cyclone A-1.jpg. If there is another picture form that storm can it be Imape:Cyclone A-2.jpg? --*****Joan97******Active Storms 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is more of an issue of categorization of the image names. There are often images of a tropical storm before it reaches hurricane status, so an alternate image surely would not have the name hurricane in it. More importantly, the image names are to describe the image itself, so an image title of "Cyclone A peak intensity" would be more appropriate than "Cyclone A-2", if there was a previous image. The problem comes down to keeping track of where all of the images are on WP and commons. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to be as descriptive as possible in the file names. Here's a bad way to name an image Image:Hurricane Emily.jpg. Since there are seven other hurricanes named Emily, plus many other images of the same Emily, that's not descriptive enough. Just like photographs, if you give the date and time they were taken, there is no ambiguity. Potapych (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't H.Pa not equal mbar. I got this from a JTWC advisory for Cyclone Jokwe. It said that it had a minimum pressure of 930 h.Pa and next to that 948mbar. So does that mean many atlantic hurricane seasons are wrong by stating that mbar and h.Pa are equal. For example Hurricane Dean has a minumum pressure of 905mbar (h.Pa) --*****Joan97******Active Storms 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From Bar (unit), 1 mbar = 1 hPa. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They're equivalent. I wonder why JTWC had that kind of a difference. Typo perhaps? Thegreatdr (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

HPa equals mbar. both are used because HPa is the metric measure of atmospheric pressure, whereas mbar is the US standard. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NIST says 1 bar = 1000 hPa, so I'm betting on a JTWC typo. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The new edition has been out since Fall. While some of the old factual errors have been corrected, new ones have appeared. Don't use its entry on Hurricane Lili (1984), for example. Some of the simple grammar problems are gone. I'm beginning to work with the author to correct some of the more obvious errors, but this won't make the book until the next update in 5 years or so. He did mention that there may be an electronic version available in the next year or two, which would allow the work to be updated in a more frequent manner. His research in NYC may be uncovering new data concerning 19th century tropical cyclone impacts, so the help could go both ways...towards improving his book, and improving HURDAT. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another article within the broader meteorology project has been downgraded - water cycle. Somehow, it was inappropriately upgraded to GA in late 2006 in the first place, and its issues were never resolved. The same thing is happening within our subproject, per the latest newsletter. Myself and others did all we could to preserve Hurricane Ivan as a GA article a few months ago, but it was once deemed A class. Is this happening because people feel their work is finished when an article reaches GA, because the criteria changed circa 2006, and older articles which achieved GA or higher were never upgraded to the new criteria, or because our membership has shrunk? I understand this takes a lot of work, but the changes must be made, or other articles will be downgraded. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Primarily the first one, but that's more of a Wikipedia-wide problem than anything having to do with the Meteorology or Tropical cyclone projects. The FA/GA criteria have evolved organically as situations have arised, and that has for the most part caused a gradual rise in standards. A few years ago, inline citations were not necessary for FA status, and that is obviously not the case anymore. But in the wake, lots and lots of articles have been left behind. See for example Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations; the only guy who has more FA's than Hink has had most of his articles de-featured because they were in the era prior to citations.

We have had very significant attrition as well. To use myself as an example, I know that school significantly picked up its pace this year, and that I simply don't have time to write stuff in large quantities anymore, so I've taken more of an ancillary role Wikipedia-wide. For many of us, I think that has been the case. What we really should do is to try to bring an infusion of new blood, and to keep it once we are here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found out that there is tropical storm arthur formed on April 1, does anyone know what has happened. http://www.topix.com/county/galveston-tx/2008/04/tropical-storm-arthur-forms-do-we-need-to-extend-hurricane-season

96.224.242.247 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Joan97

I have no idea where they got that Arthur formed in April. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's April 1. That explains it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the maps are using a different map and why there is no track map for the 2007 Pacific typhoon season after Typhoon Man-Yi?

• • • • • Joan97******Active Storms 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because the final versions of those maps haven't been uploaded by the users who have the track map generator installed. I tried installing it, but to no avail. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I Believe that they are also waiting for the JTWC Report thats coming out soon Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

2007 JTWC best track is available. -Ramisses (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following to Mitchazenia, but figured others in the project might be interested too.

Don't be too willing to discount high TD numbers. Something changed by 1989 which significantly lowered TD counts from NHC. Some of us (including at least one meteorologist at TPC) noticed the change soon after NHC created proper advisories for TDs which began around 1988 (instead of mere references in the tropical weather outlook). Others noticed that the TD definition itself changed to become more stringent (going from closed isobar to closed wind circulation and including wordage like well-defined and warm-core). While a number of the pre-1989 TDs probably wouldn't be considered TDs nowadays, some of them would have been TSs if meteorologists had the current tools 20-30 years ago. By the way, if you ever see newspaper articles from the mid 80s backward which define the term tropical depression, let me know. With such information, we might be able to create an article detailing the history of tropical cyclone advisories/warnings for the Atlantic basin. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi—I've noticed a number of hurricane and cyclone disambiguation pages in which ((Hurricane disambig)) has been replaced by its definition. Here's an example. Please don't do this. There are a number of reasons why most templates should not be subst'd, MOSDAB makes it specific with respect to DABs. Thanks. —johndburger 02:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is done. The documentation is pretty lousy, however. If there are any quirks I should be able to fix them pretty easily. A better test of the template is to use it in articles that are NOT for the Atlantic or East Pacific, so I tried it on this one: 2005-06 Australian region cyclone season. BoM uses gusts a lot, but their best track data is given in 10-minute averages, so I added a scale for that.

Also, storms like Guba and Durga belong in the generic SHem basin, although they can go into any article that's appropriate. I added the parameter "WarningCenter" primarily for them so you can change the value as needed (I think you would set it to PNG or BMG for those two, respectively). If what it says is wrong, don't leave it. There's a list and you can add anything you want to it.

Lastly, the parameter "Type" (and Type1 and Type2) should make it possible to finish articles like 1970 North Indian Ocean cyclone season because they don't depend on having the correct MSW value. If you see some articles that say "Unknown strength tropical cyclone" a lot, it is because this parameter is looking for specific values. Go ahead and delete the lines that contain them, and it should work.Potapych (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks excellent. The only thing I would add to the documentation is that the parameters are case-sensitive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does not explain these points very well.

Anyway. can i and how? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the bottom of the member list on the main page. Then, start editing articles, making sure to include inline references as you go. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How should tropical cyclones that cross the dateline be named? I am starting this discussion to reach a consensus on how to name systems that are both typhoons and tropical storms because I have a .txt article on 1959's Patsy ready to go and am not whether to call it Typhoon Patsy (1959) or Hurricane Patsy (1959). Since it crossed the dateline while at hurricane/typhoon intensity, either of those names is a possible article title. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Patsy is an unusual case. The precedent for basin crossers (CPAC/WPAC or WPAC/NIO) is to name it for whichever basin it reached hurricane status. Typhoon Paka formed in CPAC but reached hurricane status in WPAC, while Hurricane Ioke did reach hurricane status in CPAC. A Google search indicates "Hurricane Patsy 1959" has more hits than "Typhoon Patsy 1959". However, the MWR says Typhoon Patsy, and the CPHC says "was upgraded to a typhoon". I'm personally leaning Typhoon Patsy (1959). FWIW, the MWR also has its track beginning west of the dateline. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself was leaning towards Hurricane Patsy (1959) because it was stronger as a hurricane and due to it having more search engine hits, but also saw the other case. That's why I brought it up here. Whatever the decision, the other possible name would redirect to the chosen name. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Hurricane Patsy (1959), but that's just my opinion. Mostly per directly above. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the responses here, I'd says that there is weak support for calling it a hurricane. I am going to create it there and redirect the other name there, bearing in mind that if consensus changes the page can always be moved. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there is a problem rendering the small infobox templates in IE. If anyone wants to redo the code, I have an example at User:Potapych/Sandbox, and I can implement it in the template. Potapych (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

portal earth sciences has been put for featured portal candidacy. your suggestion and comments are most welcome. thank you, Sushant gupta (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Well, I couldn't stay of Wikipedia for even a month before missing it, it seems. I will begin working on Hurricane Frances' article, attempting to get an FA or even FT eventually. TheNobleSith (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you back! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is copied over from the GA page of 1851 Atlantic hurricane season.

Here's the discussion that led to text being included on the wikiproject page regarding the name of storm articles for unnamed tropical cyclones. I had a similar issue with Unnamed Hurricane (1975) from the central Pacific. Originally, it was named Hurricane 12 within the Pacific article, I believe. If we're naming systems this way for storm articles, you'd think we'd be following the same format for the headers given in annual articles as well. The problem with using these numerical assignments is that these storms were never called "Hurricane One" or "Hurricane 12" in real-time, and still aren't or the name in HURDAT would be "TWELVE" and not "UNNAMED". It is safer, and will require fewer changes in the future, to call systems "Late June Texas hurricane" to avoid this problem. If you no longer think this applies pre-1950, we need to have a discussion within the project specifically about this issue, because (as you've noted) we have a difference between the conventions used in the annual articles and what is stated on the wikiproject page which should be resolved. We also have a problem with tropical depression numbering in more recent years which is not going to go away. I've been using the number assigned operationally (in the 1981 Atlantic hurricane season article), while other years are just numbering everything sequentially, regardless of what they were called operationally. This is a related debate...I'll copy this over to the tropical cyclone wikiproject page since it's at least as relevant on that page than this one. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do not necessarily think we should be following the same format for storm article names versus section titles. First, I believe that generally all unnamed storms since the start of naming should have the format of "Unnamed Cyclone (Year)". However, for the pre-naming storms but still within the official database, I believe the season article should list it "ONE", "TWO", "THREE". I do see the argument for having the section titles correspond to the article title, then doing the same for other storms that affected land. However, there are major problems for that. Regularly two storms affect the same area in the same month, and more importantly there are the storms that do not affect land, at least directly. Given the HURDAT era has been thoroughly completed from 1851-1910, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to keep it simple with the number names. I don't think I'd mind switching it up for the unassessed HURDAT period (1920-1950), but I also wouldn't mind consistency. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What about for storms like the Mid Florida Hurricane of August 1851, that were given a name after the fact, a name that even NHC acknowledges in their US hurricane landfall table? And for information, the unassessed HURDAT period is 1921-current. For example, there are systems that show up as tropical storms within the Daily Weather Map series during the 1950s which are not within HURDAT, and we still have some systems in the 1970s through 1990s which either were not given subtropical portions, but were explicitly stated as subtropical cyclones within their storm reports, or tropical storms even though they were never officially upgraded from TD in real time despite surface observations which state otherwise. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it simple by listing the storms by number, for 1851-1920. My concern for those descriptive names is most of them are by area and month. That becomes a problem when a storm lasts over a week and affects more than one place. Also, it becomes a problem when there are two storms in the same month that could have the same title, like in 1886 for hurricanes two and three. For 1950 to present, I think any storms that were in Daily Weather Map but not in HURDAT should be in an "other storms" section, but there I wouldn't mind seeing them called "Early June Mid-Atlantic Tropical Storm", or something. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is agreed that this procedure of "tropical storm 9" be continued within the annual articles, a change needs to be made to the main project page to reflect it. It doesn't seem consistent to me to do it one way in the annual articles, but another way for individual storm articles. Then again, I'm not the only one in the project, so I'd like to hear opinions from the others. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing in the main WPTC page deals with the section naming, so this discussion would only be to add whatever we decide. I think what is more important is not the consistancy between article/section title, but between section titles. After all, there are only a handful of articles from 1851-1910. Come to think of it, there is another option I think I would like. For the landfalling storms, what about listing both? In the 1886 season for the Indianola hurricane, what if it was like "Hurricane Five/Indianola Hurricane", or "Hurricane Five (Indianola Hurricane)". That would keep the numeric structure, but still specify the storm in the section title (for ease in table of contents). Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is an option, it opens up the door for titles like "Tropical Depression 12/Tropical Depression Nine" for years there were 3 other candidates added to the TD list after the fact (there are seasons like this according to the 1988-2002 Atlantic systems articles and the non-developing system database). In my opinion, a mix of methods for annual season titles and article naming would be confusing. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really mean it in terms of tropical depressions. I more meant it for the section titles that also have articles, like, in 1856, "Hurricane One/Last Island Hurricane". Have we figured out how long depressions have been numbered? For whatever period after that in which they were numbered, I believe they should also go numerically, since that was their designation (like TD 10 in 2007). If any new ones are added, somehow, than it can be listed as "Late September Tropical Depression", or something, since it would be out of order. For the period before they were numbered, IMO the depressions should be listed as the descriptive format, and not numerically. I still think the mix of methods could work. Then again, it's hard to reach a decision when only two people are talking. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Let's allow others to chime in. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I dunno. You guys can keep going. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its better if they were listed numbered even if they were listed in a period before they were numbered because a name like "Late September Tropical Depression" is too generic and confusing to the reader if there were multiple tropical depressions, storms and/or hurricanes all at once in late september or any other month and makes its difficult to determine which storm is which.Storm05 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably read something like "Late September Western Caribbean tropical depression," but there would still be potential uncertainty if more than one TD formed in that area within a ten day period. It looks like TD numbers were used operationally back through at least 1969, per the recent archives available at NHC, so our TD article problem will lurk in the years between 1969 and 1986. The unnamed tropical cyclone problem covers a much longer period of time. Thanks for the input. More is needed and welcome. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated a whole swathe of track maps on Commons, including but not limited to: the 1915-20 HURDAT update, info in the 2007 JTWC best track and storms to date in the current seasons. These are all on Commons, but I haven't fixed any of the articles - the AHS articles will be incorrect as a result of the changed numbers.

Seeing as no one seems to have the ability (or the inclination) to use it, I'll write up a guide over the weekend and post it on wiki when I'm done. I am confident that the program can within a Ubuntu Live CD session. This option would work for most Windows users (which I assume constitutes the majority here). However, as the program's SVN repository seems buggy I have not been able to test just yet.

As a little challenge for anyone interested: I will do a cumulative track (like Image:South American hurricane tracks.jpg) for the first to correctly identify this track.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried installing the program on my Leopard computer, but to no avail, as it fails on compile because it doesn't find Cairo. :S Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well have you downloaded Cairo? I don't think its included in any mainstream OS by default.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the latest version via MacPorts. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the results of the compile:

Bootstrapping... [prerequisites]
** Error: some prerequisites could not be found:
	++ Checking for autoconf, need 2.57.0, found 2.61.0 - ok.
	++ Checking for automake, need 1.7.0, found 1.10.0 - ok.
	++ Checking for gettext, not found!

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre... :S Unfortunately, I don't really have the knowledge to figure out why it won't work. I've tried before to get it running Cygwin (in M$ XP), and that failed too. However, the Linux Live CD option certainly should work just has the annoyance of needing recompiling every time you want it. That's not too bad as the package compiles rapidly, but its hardly ideal.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding stupid - get hold of gettext? Assuming that can compile OK on Leopard, have another go - see what fails then and look for that package repeat... I'm not really the person for this, unfortunately, but I think I'm the one who can get the most out of the package at present (as a certain FP shows).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I got the dependencies to compile (gettext was in my system, but it had to be enabled manually), but I got the following syntax error during compilation:

./configure: line 5026: syntax error near unexpected token `TRACK,'
./configure: line 5026: `PKG_CHECK_MODULES(TRACK, cairo >= 1.0.0)'

That one is in the program itself, but I can't figure out where in the code it is. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its in configure.ac. Suppose you could always remove it that line and see what happens, you have the track package and cairo, so...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It dies violently without that line, as it apparently initializes and defines several variables. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

<shrug>I don't really have any idea what to do, talk to someone who does know coding or on VPT maybe?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice!! Thanks a lot with the tracks update. Regarding that track, here are my thoughts on it. It is not a real track from 1851 to 2008, since I know there have been no hurricanes taking that track over New Jersey). It also is not a recent one, since there is no depression stage. So, I narrowed it down to a few options. I'm thinking you might have done something crazy like a track map of the 24 hour forecast positions of a storm; that's too much work, though, so I don't think you would've done it. Another option would be a combination of several tracks, with the intensities edited; the last two points of this are the same points as the mystery storm. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the mystery storm was your re-creation of the 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane, based on track points from other storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect :P Just so you know, it is not a compilation from multiple storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, I know it is not a storm as it appears in HURDAT, as the hurricane status through New England (specifically New Jersey) is a giveaway. So, I'm going to guess it was either your own re-creation of 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane without other tracks, a track of a real storm but shifted Xº to the west, or something like the X hour forecast positions of a certain hurricane (thinking Floyd, but I checked and it didn't add up). If it's none of these, I give up! :P ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not fabricate the track myself, but faithfully interpreted data from a reliable source, and I can give a single url for the sourcing. I will not go any further than that: to give other people a chance to ID :P--Nilfanion (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna say it's a real track map of the 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[3] I'll give you until Monday to figure it out.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, stumped you! For what its worth I don't really think its too surprising that Norfolk got "hit"... I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will try to get more tracks done soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the 2007/2008 articles with the new tracks; thanks Nilf. Some 2007 WTS tracks are still unaccounted for: Pabuk, Sepat (waiting on correct name/track), and Podul (though the JTWC didn't carry it). -- RattleMan 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pabuk was an oversight, Sepat I stupidly put to the PAGASA name and then deleted when I noticed an error in the track (there's a few I need to redo). Podul is a wontfix: no JTWC info => no track. To start using JMA data in the tracks would require a major rethink on how the tracks are done. Changing that is not a bad thing, but whatever is done has to make sense.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, can you update the track map for Cyclone Jokwe? Storm05 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the file names for (2005's) 12S, 2S, 4S, 20W, 25W? I have been trying to guess those.Potapych (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tracks for unnamed storms have not generally been created at this time, so they are not on Commons at present. I suppose I should probably try and upload tracks for every last storm, but it hasn't been done yet (unnamed storms require marginally more effort than the named ones). The current file names for those storms is somewhat ad hoc too; I'll figure out something.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Per recent comments, it looks like we need two HURDAT articles: one for the Atlantic and one for the eastern Pacific. I've added their most probable names to the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences list, which are Atlantic hurricane database and Eastern Pacific hurricane database. If anyone wants to add them into wikipedia, feel free as always. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we could have a Hurricane database article, and then split it if necessary. Seddon69 was working on a HURDAT article in his sandbox, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That could work too...though Seddon's version only covers the Atlantic. I was under the impression that the Atlantic version had a more well-known history and a richer source of background data...initially developed with the space program in mind back in the 1960s and extended backwards using Navy records, Daily Weather Maps, and such. I've never really looked into the development of the eastern Pacific version, but the database doesn't go back as far. Since there are fewer shipping routes through the eastern Pacific, Daily Weather Maps are unlikely to be as helpful in extending the database backwards in time. If only one article is created, I'll eliminate the other on the requested pages page. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be a good move to have HURDAT article incorporated into the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons article. There has been talk to expand that page, but no one has had an idea. Well, given HURDAT and the LOAHS is is fairly co-existent, I think it'd be a logical move. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprise! The hurricane season time frame has changed through the years. What do we do?

I think that tropical cyclone database would be better; after all, what does a database of Pacific typhoons have to do with Atlantic hurricane seasons? Perhaps it would be better to find historical starting dates. This article indicates that operationally, the 1958 Atlantic hurricane season began June 15 and ended November 15. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That will be good information if an article on History of the Atlantic hurricane season is ever written. I never realized the season start date was ever set that late. I went back to see when the hurricane season became to be defined as June 1-November 30, and it appears from newspaper articles that the current definition came to be by the 1965 season. It turns out in older years (during the late 1930s and early 1940s) the hurricane season only ran from June 15 or 16 through October 31. I've only gone back through 1936, but it appears that the hurricane season defined when a 24-hour telegraph network went into operation along the Gulf and East coasts, and eventually defined the time frame when reconnaissance aircraft searched for storms over the Atlantic. This helps solve the mystery of the beginning of the hurricane season concept. What are we going to do with seasons prior to the 1930s, where hurricane seasons were not defined? Judging by the various time ranges given to the 1936 and 1964 hurricane seasons, we can't leave the older season articles with the text of June 1-November 30 defining the official hurricane season those years, can we? If we did leave dates, what would they be? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying that the season began in late spring and ran through to early autumn serves as a dodge to get around the problem of dates in older seasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't obscure, we could say meteorological summer and autumn. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Followed through on Miss Madeline's suggestion. If anyone finds actual starting/ending dates defined for older seasons, feel free to make the change and add the appropriate references. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good move. No objections here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Tropical cyclogenesis and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with this WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on helping to return this article to good article status! I have now reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and it has issues concerning sourcing that need the assistance of this project. I have left instructions for improving the article on the talk page, and if multiple editors assist in the workload, it shouldn't take too long to fix. This is an important article, and I believe the members of this project can assist in making it a better GA. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that C-class has been added to the assessment scheme (link), we should probably find some examples of this new class, at least based on the preliminary criteria they are using. As far as I understand, it could include decently written articles without referencing, and moderately lengthy articles that are not very well written. I'm thinking these are examples which would fit into this category.

• 1997 Atlantic hurricane season
  • Perhaps this could be the standard for a season article, in that most of the sections are full (with two a bit short), but referencing is lacking overall.
• Tropical Storm Tammy (2005)
  • Titoxd mentioned this one, and it could be a good standard for low-impact tropical cyclones. Content is decent, but referencing isn't the best, and the writing is a bit awkward (not to mention a good damage total was not found).
• New England Hurricane of 1938
  • Content is overall good, but the referencing is lacking badly

Any comments? (pretty please?!) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would call Tammy 05 Start because almost the entire article is unsourced. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, only the impact, which is largely derived from the TCR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the impact should be largely expanded, especially considering the remnant moisture contributed to some of the worst flooding in New York's history [looks at the water stain on the wall]. I guess it's besides the point, though, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• C class?! Wow. I don't know how to differentiate B from C. Who really can? How do you know an article is complete if inline references aren't included (since they're not required for B class)? The line between mostly complete and complete is going to be tough to identify. If anyone downgrades a B class article to C class, please place on the talk page what appears to be missing. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Or we could define what is still a B. The following criteria are used by WikiProject Military history to grant B-Class status, and we could adopt them for our purposes:
  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
• I would introduce other criteria, such as being free from copyvios, not be too technical, and not be tagged with cleanup tags. What do you think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I usually wait until an article has 10 or so inline references before elevating what is otherwise a generally complete Start class article to B class, and use a defined structure as a division between Stub and Start classes. So, in general, I agree with what you proposed. Are we allowed, as a sub-project, to define more rigorous standards than wikipedia in general? And how would a C class article look, compared to a B? Fewer/no inline references? Obvious missing information, but the proper structure? I thought the ratings system was supposed to be universal across wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We are allowed to use a slightly different rating criteria than Wikipedia as a whole. (That's why we have ((Future-Class)) and ((Current-Class))), but ideally, we shouldn't have a "weaker" assessment scale than WP:1.0. A more rigorous scale wouldn't raise eyebrows. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, in case we do want to use a checklist-based B-Class system, I've made a fully-functional banner capable of handling that. The template is currently at ((Hurricane/Temp)), and it can be deployed to all articles if we decide to use it. I've put it in Talk:Hurricane Noel to show how it works, and how it looks. Also, in other news, there are more GAs than Bs for the first time in the WikiProject's history. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I like how much C-class has been integrated, and so quickly. FWIW, I re-assessed New England Hurricane of 1938 as C-class, making it the first in the project. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have set up the main article for the Typhoon but I need people to make it better.... I have simply copyed everything over from the main list article. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I finally published the style guideline that was sitting in my sandbox for more than a year. (It is being referenced from the proposed B-Class criteria, so it needs to be more "official" than my sandbox.) It still needs some fleshing out about the structure of season articles, but overall, it is usable, I think. Please feel free to edit away any glaring errors that may be in there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AOML has standardized the annual track images on their website as large and detailed.gifs with the same annotations and color schemes. Just a head's up. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I like them. So, should we upload all of them? If so, should we do it as a replacement of the previous image (replacing this with this) or make a new file? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense that the new maps would replace the scanned track book maps (scanned in the mid 1990's). They're more readable, and more colorful too. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably one of those things better left to NilfaBot to upload to Commons. I'll poke Nilfanion about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also a lot of old EPac ones which are much nicer.Potapych (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In a similar topic, I should note that a page was created, related to track maps - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Storm track requests. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, also see here for more info, as well as several points for discussion. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Beginning this July, my activity level will likely drop significantly. Thus, I will likely not be able to participate (much) in this project. More info may be found on my userpage. Best wishes, ~AH1^(TCU) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It (unexpectedly) turns out I'm no longer going to be semi-retired, so let's hope this is an Ernesto, not an Elena. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been toying with the Hurricane Dean article for quite a while, and I was wondering whether anyone would be willing to give me a little advice. What sections are missing? Where does the article need to be expanded? A quick bulleted to-do list would really help me direct my efforts. Plasticup ^T/C 19:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone has realised but today marks the beginning of the new SHEM Tropical cyclone Year, I am raising this as the articles for This year have not been written yet. so i will start to write them later if there no objections. Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Well, the same thing happened last year. Since it is the dead of winter down there, you should have time to get the basic layouts done. I have no objections, and thanks taking care of it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right they have now been made up, but i will be leaving them in the sandbox for now as we are still lacking some basic infomation. For example the naming lists for TCWC Jakarta and RSMC La Reunion once they have been announced then i will publish them. (I personnally suspect we will have the names for Jakarta shortly as the WMO RA V Tropical cyclone committee is going to be meeting within the next few weeks.) Jason Rees (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The first invest of the SWIO season has appeared. VOFFA created the talkpages for the seasons, so I went ahead and made your sandboxes live or else patrollers would delete the talkpages for not having an article. Hope you don't mind. -- RattleMan 08:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive got no objections to them being moved since we have our first invest if the season. Jason Rees (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see User talk:Hurricanehink#ACE calcs, some of the ACE calcs are missing or without a total, should I try to add them? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to calculate ACE calcs for a season not already here, or for current seasons, they are free to use my ACE Calcs program, available here. -- RattleMan 17:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. After a quick search for Atl and EPac hurricane seasons from 1990 onwards, it turns out that the 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005 Atlantic season articles, as well as the 1993, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005 Pacific hurricane season articles have ACE problems, and those should be addressed. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My own personal inclination is to not include ACE, since I don't think it adds much listing it for each storm. They don't have much importance, as it's just an overall assessment for how long and strong it was. Most importantly, we don't really have a good source for the ACE for each storm. Regarding the purpose of this section, I'd like some unity, meaning an all or nothing scenario, though, again, I'd prefer the "nothing" option. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it should be included in articles that have ((Highest ACE Atlantic hurricane seasons)) transcluded in them, as well as in articles like AHS 1914, since the ACE was the lowest ever. -- RattleMan 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we are committing a MOS violation across the project. Per WP:MOS#Images:

• Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location.

This was brought up in my current FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Chantal (2001).

So, the question is, should we find a way to change it, or keep it how it is for consistency? There are some options.

IMO, A top right-aligned image in the storm history section wouldn't look good. I did a test, which didn't quite work out as I had planned, but I think having the track map any later would really mitigate its purpose.

However, we could move the track map up even further, by putting it in the Infobox. Two options for that would be basing it off of the French Infobox (example) with the track map at the bottom, or basing it off of the Infobox Hurricane Small ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Frances example), which would have the track map to the right of the satellite image.

Food for thought, and comments are appreciated. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The French one created too much whitespace and messed up the layout of the next section. The current infobox is already long enough. You can either use clear and move the whitespace to the left, or invade the section after the lede. As you pointed out, that looks terrible. The second option - neither version of IHS works properly under IE. I don't know how to fix that, but I do know that putting images side-by-side like that is a lot of trouble. In this case, screw the MOS because nothing else works for individual storm articles. What they are asking for will look much much worse.Potapych (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"...directly below second-level (===) headings..." Storm history is always used as a first-level heading (==). That is not the cause of a MOS violation (if there is one at all). To fix the squeeze we get a ton of whitespace before the first section or the track badly stacking with the infobox. The MOS-compliant solution which looks tolerable is to remove the image from the start of that section, moving it to the start of paragraph 2 is partial not a full solution as it makes the text look worse in some instances. Ultimately, an image in the first section will always cause problems; its deciding which is least bad. Making the infobox smaller would help: we can use smaller text and make more parameters optional. Does the infobox in Hurricane Karen (2007) need any of the last section?--CycloneAlley (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MoS here, and normally keep all images on the right with a size of 250px, because it looks better formatwise. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thegreatdr, what about in regards to the storm path map? This is discussing its placement, and whether the current format is ideal having the storm path at the top-left of the storm history. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A second apparent error for 2008 has shown up in a TCD, this time relating to Bertha. Only the GFS and Canadian forecasted its existence before Sunday (June 29), and they were way to slow, and slowing the system down by one day each day, normally a sign of a false alarm. According to those pieces of guidance from the 29, the cyclone should be near 15n 33w on July 6, so it's unclear this was even Bertha. The NHC forecaster coordinating the medium range forecast with HPC was Roberts, who would have had more authority should a statement of that sort be made...I was on the HPC end of the call last Friday, then again from Sunday through Wednesday. Before Sunday, I don't think you can say the global guidance had a handle on the disturbance that became Bertha, which is why it didn't show up on the HPC forecast maps as a low until the guidance did have a handle on the disturbance on Monday (June 30). It wouldn't be the first time a statement showed up in the TCD that was not fully correct. Keep in mind it is a real-time product, and technically isn't a primary source for that reason, should someone question it. Its par is above that of a blog, however. I've wondered whether we should really be using these within wikipedia articles for this type of reason. What do others in the project think? Thegreatdr (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the TCD has errors and that it is not always a polished product, but I don't think that precludes it from being a primary source. It is produced by experts, released through a government agency, and is pretty much the most authoritative document on the subject. No source is ever 100% accurate, but the TCD is the best combination of accuracy and availability. Plasticup ^T/C 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question (that I'm aware of) which we've asked before as a project. Just seeing what you all thought. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come off harshly - that was not my meaning. It is an interesting thought and I am curious what everyone else has to say as well. Plasticup ^T/C 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It did not. Just clarifying why I brought it up. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the discos are generally the best source, outside of a thoroughly analyzed source by the same agency. For example, if a discussion says something, but HURDAT does not agree with it, then we should use HURDAT. This happened with Alma earlier this year. It becomes tricky when there is a known discrepancy, such as the one you pointed out, but when that happens we don't have to source them. The majority of the time they are very informative for the current state of the storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• In general, it depends what we're using the disco for. If we say that a storm was operationally predicted to intensify to X strength, then the disco is probably the best source with the exception of the TCR. I recall seeing TCDs talk about when a storm is going to be renamed if it crosses a basin; these are pretty much secondary sources detailing NHC policy in these cases. If we're using a disco to talk about a record, the discos are still acceptable, unless we know they're pretty much wrong, due to HURDAT or something else. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We had another issue come up yesterday regarding which upper low in Bertha's vicinity was causing the shear...the one to its west or its northeast. The early morning TCD implied the western one, when it was clear in the model and water vapor imagery that it was due to the one northeast of the cyclone, which has since moved away. As long as we're careful, I don't see harm in their use. The problem is, like with yesterday's case, there likely won't be a primary source for the shear until the TCR comes out, if it is referenced then. Sometimes, they're worded broadly to account for uncertainty, especially when they're written weeks or months later. We had this problem with Hurricane Lili, when neither the TCR or TCDs discussed why it weakened prior to the Louisiana landfall. We had to find a peer-reviewed source which mentioned it, written years after the fact. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Would Tropical cyclone make a great "Today's featured article" on the main page? It is listed as one of Wikipedia's Vital Articles and it is already FA Class. It seems a perfect candidate. Plasticup ^T/C 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great point. We should request it sometime, but it should be an appropriate date. A logical date would be June 1st, 2009, as that's the start of the next Atlantic hurricane season, but that is really far off. There isn't really another great date between now and then, though we could do, say, September 1st, as that's near the peak of Atlantic activity. One problem with that would be the likelihood that a tropical cyclone is active at the same time as it is on the main page, which could prove problematic if there is a major storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We could also do it on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall, or Andrew's/Wilma's/Charley's/Ivan's. Those are the sorts of events that people remember and associate with hurricanes, whereas the start of the season is usually not much of an event for your average-Joe. For such a broad topic there are a lot of options. Plasticup ^T/C 03:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that, particularly for Katrina's landfall, but I also thought anything in August would be too soon after yesterday's TFA of Typhoon Paka. That, plus 2006 AHS having it back in June, means we might have to wait a few months until appearing on the main page again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How about doing it for November 1st when the SHEM seasons kick off. Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I forgot the SHEM began on November 1 (I was thinking Dec. 1 for some reason). Yea, I love that idea. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw this on Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006)‎, and on Talk:2008 Atlantic hurricane season, where I assume the problem is coming from the NHC. There are two characters in Latin-1 that look like a superscript circle; ° (U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN), and º (U+00BA MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR). The latter is showing in articles for latitude and longitude, but in reality it's an ordinal indicator for Spanish and Portuguese and it's frequently underlined in fonts, making it look completely wrong for the degree sign for many readers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is a pretty common mistake across the whole encyclopedia, not just this project. It is even mentioned in the MOS: Wikipedia:MOS#SI_symbols_and_unit_abbreviations. Plasticup ^T/C 02:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It possible to make a bot that would check the NHC site every 6 hours and update the list articles automatically with the latest stats? That would cut down on some of the monotony for people updating for storms that are no threat to land or are days out. I doubt an XML feed exists, but perhaps a bot could read the plaintext? They tend to use a rather basic template. I could offer some suggestions on a bot (for example, only running when it's told to, since it can't very well update an article section that doesn't exist yet, etc) but I wanted to ask about the basic notion first. --Golbez (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to cut down those painful updates. Are you thinking of something fully automated that would run 24/7 without direct supervision or a semi-automated bot that would required a human to approve each update? Plasticup ^T/C 11:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully automated, though started by a human (which could be as simple as posting, say, the storm name on a protected page) until triggers cause it to stop, such as... updates coming less than 6 hours apart, or a warning or watch issued (means that it's close to land and actual prose needs to be written)... but on the other hand, even in these cases, the infoboxes need updating, and that can easily be handled automatically. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it use ((Infobox hurricane current))? I think that template needs to be overhauled like IHS. It is much easier if the user could just add the value in knots, than to do all the other conversions. That would probably mess up your bot if it the changes were made later. However, all hurricane templates except the one used in storm articles have major style issues with IE. It probably has something to do with their reliance on toccolours style sheet, but I don't know how to fix that. I would rather have that solved first before the other templates are messed with.Potapych (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your template questions have no bearing on if we use a bot to update it. :P And I think the bot could also update the prose as well, if we set it apart in a paragraph. --Golbez (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished rewriting the article on Hurricane Celia in 1970. Can someone reevaluate the article please? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a couple of us are helping you out here. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have information on Celia's effects in Cuba? (other than that it dropped heavy rainfall and killed 5) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After talking this over with Hurricanehink and discussing it a little bit on IRC, I've decided to bring this here to finalize a consensus.

As discussed on the latest newsletter, ((C-Class)) was added to the WP:1.0 scale, and as said above, WikiProjects are encouraged to use the rubric developed to help WikiProjects assess B-Class articles. I've been working on doing the behind-the-scenes work version on the rubric, and the results are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#B-Class criteria.

However, the new criteria are useless if the WikiProject banner is not capable of handling them. For that purpose, I've created ((Hurricane/Temp)), which allows us to automatically show and use the checklist when an article is assessed as B-Class. However, the template also has built-in logic to automatically downgrade an article to C-Class if it doesn't meet all the criteria. And that's where the rub comes in: it would create a little bit of work for us to reassess about 150 articles to see if they still meet the new B-Class checklist. Most of the discussions I've had have been in favor of this idea as long as the B-Class criteria remain reasonable, but I'm not comfortable making a large change of this magnitude without more opinions being presented.

That said, if we do make this change, we might as well implement another suggestion made on my talk page: Using task forces to sort our articles by topic. This will allow us to more easily generate statistics such as the ones on WP:WPTC/T and here. I made three proof-of-concept task force pages already: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Storm articles task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Season articles task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Meteorology articles task force, and I'm thinking about making Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Records articles task force. However, these would require retagging pretty much our entire project, which amounts to about 1,000 articles. While this is really easy (probably it could even be done with Igor), again, I'd rather not do it without everyone knowing about it and a consensus having formed.

Comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of subcategories...even better if it can be done automatically. As for the assessment, it wouldn't be too much to ask us to reassess 5-10 articles each, would it? I've been slowly going through met articles and doing this...and I think others have been doing this within the TC project. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that big a deal, I think, especially because articles that are currently B-Class would be placed in Category:Tropical cyclone articles with incomplete B-Class checklists until all the parameters described on Template:Hurricane/B list/doc are filled out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree.... it might be sensible to start it on low-importance articles first... so if we mess them up... they are easier to re-build..... We simply upgrade on importance and keep working. Would that actually work???? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That actually shouldn't be a problem, as I've tested the changes for a while, and actually deployed something similar for WikiProject Anime and manga. Besides, since bot runs occur every four days, if there is a problem, we can fix it easily before the next bot run occurs. The only thing would be to write the necessary documentation in a simpler way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As Tito and I were the ones in discussion, I am in favor of both of these proposals. The B-class auto re-assessment makes sense (which I grudgingly agreed to, since it does make sense), and I greatly support the idea of inflating my edit count by retagging all 1,000 articles into task forces. I'm not so sure I see the point in a records article task force, as, if all articles are to be in a task force, they could fall into meteorology, which I am sure will be the smaller category. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Records would be for things like List of notable tropical cyclones and List of California hurricanes, that is, essentially for general listings of what tropical cyclones have done over time, at least the way I thought of it. Meteorology was for the science articles (e.g. Tropical cyclone, Tropical cyclogenesis, United States rainfall climatology), as well as for things like National Hurricane Center, David M. Roth and such. But yes, you're right, meteorology would be the catch-all of the task forces. That said, records can be folded back without any problems. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, considering that the response has been positive, and that these sorts of discussions usually don't generate that much interest, I've deployed the changes live. The instructions for the revised template are available at Template talk:Hurricane#Usage, but essentially, if you consider that an article is still a B, change ((hurricane | class=B | importance=...)) to ((hurricane | class=B | B1=yes | B2=yes | B3=yes | B4=yes | B5=yes | B6=yes |importance=...)). If you think it should remain a C, change any of the B parameters to "no", and ideally, leave comments on the talk page. As for the task forces, I'll begin working on the three we have agreed to, but you can begin adding the storms-task-force=yes, seasons-task-force=yes, or meteo-task-force=yes tags already. In the meantime, we can decide whether records is worth having or not. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• And I've deployed support for the three task forces to ((hurricane)). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles of Category:Meteorological histories of individual tropical cyclones are being split between the storms and meteorology task forces. Presumably they should all be in the same group - storms or meteorology? I am leaning towards meteorology because that category is, itself, in the "Tropical cyclone meteorology" category. Plasticup ^T/C 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the same comment on the storm task force page earlier today, without even knowing it had already been addressed here. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I thought that it would be better to place those articles under the Storms task force, as they are essentially glorified storm history sections for individual articles. Which means that we need to get a bigger consensus to see which belongs to which. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is obvious a lot of overlap between the two task forces and I don't think you are going to break any hearts either way. I don't have much of a preference, to be honest. Most of these articles are FA-class, so the task forces won't be working on them very much anyway. Plasticup ^T/C 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I am focusing mostly on current storms and updates. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the NHC TCDs are cited with only the "year=" field for the publishing date. SandyGeorgia has indicated that the "date=" field is required for FAC. It would be a pain to update them all, but in the future we should try to use more specific "date=" field. Plasticup ^T/C 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the scales for the other basins. You can use gusts, 10-min winds, etc. and it should get the categories right (although mean winds are preferred). Many storm articles may need their caches purged to get them to look right.

I should mention that I was testing this on Cyclone Elita. Their own website says "Forte tempete tropicale" which is a Severe tropical storm, but their own mean winds value falls in the "Tropical cyclone" category. I don't know why that is.Potapych (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Australian scale is defined on gusts. Therefore gusts should take precedence over 10min winds. Yes its stupid, but that is the way the BoM defines its categories.--CycloneAlley (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They show the corresponding values here [4]. The record of mean winds seems to be more complete than the record of gusts. The authors of Cyclone Vance were having trouble with this, since BoM's maximum gusts records did not reach category 5 level, while the report said it was that category. I think it is best not to rely on the values of those reports, because I do not think they give peak values. Using BT data, which is in 10-minute form, Vance reached the intensity of BoM's claim.Potapych (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made this template for use in a Haitian storm. Would it be worth making similar templates for the larger tables in the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country? Plasticup ^T/C 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reference problem would be resolved on the various pages where the template is placed. Would this mean that all that would need to be updated would be the templates? There are more than one article which use the various tables. If this is so, I support it. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. When a storm drops record rainfall in the Bahamas we would just have to update the "Wettest tropical cyclones in the Bahamas" template and all of the individual storm pages would automatically update. Not only would it be easier than editing every table every time, but I think it would also encourage people to use the tables more frequently. Templates are just cleaner, quicker, and easier than individual tables. Plasticup ^T/C 13:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of using it, and other such templates. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I am putting them in a new Category: Category:Tropical cyclone rainfall templates Plasticup ^T/C 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On Storm2k there is something saying that there is an invest in the Southern Hemisphere! THere are also some advisories. I'll try to get more info--Elena85 | Talk to Me | Arlene87 is now Elena85 13:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The invest is gone. There were no special advisories regarding it, only generic weather summaries highlighting lows. -- RattleMan 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But there are never storms in the southern hemisphere! Plasticup ^T/C 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of tropical cyclone pages so I'm certainly not in a position to suggest any specific changes, but I ran into a systemic problem that caused me some confusion and may confuse other editors who aren't familiar with the articles within the scope of your WikiProject. As jdorje noted above, the disambiguation pages are actually set index articles. Seeing the word "disambiguation" in the title of a page or in the name of a template or category carries with it very specific connotations, and requires a very specific format. Set indexes are actually a form of stand-alone list, and can use a much less restrictive format. Renaming them appropriately would help hapless editors like me who try to fix the formatting of pages with "disambiguation" in the title, template and category without realizing they're just mislabeled and are actually a very different beast.

Digging through this WikiProject and its category talk page histories, there have been a number of discussions about disambiguation pages and even a few CfD,[5][6] but none of them really seemed to recognize this specific issue. WikiProject Ships ran into a similar issue and even had a very similar CfD,[7] so the standard they developed may be helpful. BTW, I'm very impressed by your group's coverage of tropical cyclones, especially the historical depth. Excellent work. Pat (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pat makes a point... but does anyone think that it is worth changing all of our disambig pages? Plasticup ^T/C 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Track maps such as this are incorrect since Australia doesn't use Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and what data is used for the track? Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The tracking data used is from the JTWC for the Austrailan region. Jason Rees (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are the NHC ones preferred over the ones with the NASA background maps? The other day I replaced all the old ones with the new season tracks [8] between the years 1995-2007. They go all the way back to 1949, and the colors and graphics are consistent throughout.Potapych (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asking because there are some other season maps before 1995 which are in different colors. Won't this interfere if someone uploads the NHC ones to Commons?Potapych (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have guidelines so to what constitutes a "Mid" importance article versus a "Low" importance or "High" importance one? Is there an existing convention? Can we make one? The WikiProject Mexico has a table that we could copy. Plasticup ^T/C 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, it was like this:

1. ((Top-Importance)) - decided on a case-by-case basis
2. ((High-Importance)) - property damage exceeds $10 billion, or the storm caused more than 100 deaths
3. ((Mid-Importance)) - property damage exceeds $500 million, or the storm more than 30 deaths
4. ((Low-Importance)) - everything else

So under those criteria, Dolly would be Mid-Importance. But I agree that it should be written somewhere more accessible than Archive 6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't that be biased towards wealthy countries which higher property values? Or is it just meant to serve as a guide? Plasticup ^T/C 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because poorer countries will unfortunately have more deaths than damage. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well thanks for digging that up. Is there somewhere that we can display that more permanantly? Maybe at WP:WPTC/Assessment. Plasticup ^T/C 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

do we use the same importance guidelines for the season articles ? Jason Rees (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. From that same archive, we have:

1. ((Top-Importance)) - decided on a case-by-case basis
2. ((High-Importance)) - season had more than 19 storms
3. ((Mid-Importance)) - season had more than 14 storms, or was exceptional in some other way
4. ((Low-Importance)) - everything else

Agreed on putting this on a more prominent place, though. I'll see what I can hack. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should revamp the importance a little bit. After all, the rankings are very skewed toward unimportant. I think we should do it as if we were imagining ourselves as solely as a tropical cyclone encyclopedia. That means it would be very important to have every retired storm (all either top or high), with only the true menial storms being low (so Lee 05 would be low, but Claudette 03, which caused over $200 million in damage, would be mid). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are my ideas for rough categories:

• Notes:
  • The determined level should be the average of the criteria in order to balance outlying factors.
  • All storms which had their names retired as a result should automatically go to Mid-importance at least, regardless of other criteria.
  • Top-importance storms are only determined by consensus (default to High-importance until such is reached), but there are often obvious cases.

CrazyC83 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the season criteria mentioned above would skew every Pacific typhoon annual article to high or top. As long as historical importance is factored into the scale, I'm good. It's hard to use numbers to guide you to anything meaningful. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How I think they should go for season articles, beginning with the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons (using this chart):

Notes:

• These categories are designed so that the Top-importance is limited to the record-breaking seasons.
• All Atlantic seasons since 1995 are automatically Mid-importance at least due to greater news coverage.

CrazyC83 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree on either of the "news attention" columns, as they're fairly subjective, and would in reality be a part of the historical importance component. But otherwise, I'm okay with those. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but shouldn't the cyclones that have warnings up be top importance.... and the same for active seasons.... 15:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On a temporary basis, maybe. I did that for Nargis, but it was rather obvious it needed to be raised once reports of 10,000+ deaths started coming in. So, what's going to happen with this? Are we going to use these as our criteria or not? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

CrazyC83, personally I really disagree with that table. I think we should be looking at our articles more like them being in a tropical cyclone encyclopedia. Articles that are truly vital such an encyclopedia would be analogous to a vital articles list, though this page needs to be changed to be more worldwide. Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a start. One more thing to consider: WP:V0.7 is already reducing our importance scores due to our limited scope, so we don't have to continue artificially reducing our own scores anymore. We can grade importance values as being relative to a specialist encyclopedia now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1969 Atlantic hurricane season map.png. The link [9] has gone dead. I guess it was a "get it while you can" deal.Potapych (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a working link. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just joined the project and will do what I can to provide assistance with tropical storms affecting Taiwan with information and, when possible, photos. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the article on Tropical Storm Kiko from 2007 and I'd like someone to review it so I can make any and all changes necessary. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a decent start. I just gave it a good copyedit, but the prose could use some more work. Some more impact would also be nice; try checking Spanish sources. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much in the way of impact, save the fifteen immigrants that drowned, and there are no sources that say anything about its impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) What is needed for this article to reach good article rating? I don't what else I can put into the article since I can't find any images of the effects. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It could probably pass GA as it is... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)