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.

Maybe you've noted that at the moment there are problems with the timeline. The bug is reportes as bug 16085. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We recently had a couple of embarrassments at FAC, which would never have occurred if we had first used the internal review process that we agreed upon the other week. Before any article is brought to FAC it should be assessed by project members at WP:WPTC/A. I have added WP:WPTC/A to my watchlist, and I promise that I will respond to requests for assessment there. Hopefully others will work there too and we can get the system working smoothly. Plasticup ^T/C 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Next year, it has been proposed that the NHC monthly tropical cyclone summaries and objective guidance messages be scrapped. The public advisories may also change format, in that the TCM and TCP products could be merged. In the case of the objective guidance messages, its scrapping is being done since this data is already available in a different form on their ftp site. This could impact the preparation of tropical cyclone articles (maybe even the NRL messages some in the project seem dependent upon) during and for several months after a tropical cyclone occurrence. We're having to determine in-house how to recode our CLIQR programs to account for the loss of the objective guidance messages. The decision will likely be made in early December. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Isn't there a public comment process that happens for changes like these? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally a public information statement comes out 3 months prior to the change. I'm guessing this is the public comment period you're referring to. Some of these changes pend an agreement during the conference that is to be held in a couple weeks. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears to me irritating that in f.ex. Timeline of the 2007–08 Australian region cyclone season the colour coding of the SSHS is used instead of the colors we're using in the small hurricane infoboxes. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Particularly since the Australian categories are usually nothing like the SSHS categories. I think the wind speeds listed there might be right? Potapych (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I added some new parameters to this one (see an example 2005 Atlantic hurricane season). The idea was mentioned on one of the FAN pages, so I just tried to implement it. Feel free to tweak it, since I do not know that much about the styles. If you see any bugs on one of the season pages, try '?action=purge' at the end of the url first. I spotted something I had fixed was still appearing in one of the articles.

There's a longstanding bug in this template. At the end of every box you might notice a couple of rows of white pixels that shouldn't be there. I think that can be fixed once the old code is removed. This can only happen once Category:Incomplete hurricane infoboxes is finally cleared out. Make sure you are not using templates or template parameters that have been depreciated. Potapych (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The little box looks nice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment, there are several pages up for assessment, but they're really not going anywhere. It looks like we need a more definite voting system, or at least a minimum number of support declarations before promotion to A-Class. Comments would be appreciated. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Save your recent addition, there has been no activity there since November 18. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst i agree with Julians comments i would just like to remind him that there is one already - 3 editors minimum for A Class Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe adding it to the Noticeboard would help since it's a project by project thing. It would bring a bit more attention to it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• A small group of editors discussed this on #wiki-hurricanes yesterday over turducken (whatever the hell that is), and we decided to implement a WP:FAR-like review system:
  1. First, we hold a general review period to not exceed one month. In this period, explicit support declarations are encouraged if the article merits it. In this stage, four editors supporting the article, with no opposition can promote an article to A-Class. Raising objections is encouraged as well, but they have to meet the same actionability standards as objections at FAC. In other words, crap like "Oppose. Hurricanehink sucks! He has more A-Class articles than I do! ~~~~" will generally be ignored.
  2. If the one-month period passes, we go into WP:FARC mode. At this point, to stop the page from getting clogged in old noms, straight support/oppose voting will be used to finalize consensus and keep things chugging along. Votes are taken during a period of one week, and at the period's conclusion, the consensus is gauged by an uninvolved editor in good standing, the discussion is closed, and the article promoted to A-Class or held in its current status.
• As with all IRC-based discussions, this is only a preliminary draft (with some stuff that I just added now), and it is necessary to gather on-wiki support for the idea to stop people from being surprised into WTF mode. Comments? Questions? Flames? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd go with three supports for A-class, as there are so few people using the system. Otherwise, looks good, although personally I don't mind those such opposes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I proposed four to prevent editors gaming the system by reviewing a clearly-subpar article into A-Class status quickly. I think that lowering it to three and holding the review to a minimum of one week would probably satisfy my concerns. How about that? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds great. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the references for this article seem to be dead, a major flaw with the article. I don't know how to fix this myself so it's best to bring it up here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of AP stories. Those expire after a month or so after being made, so it is better to make sure that they are webcited when we add them to current event articles. Now, we essentially have to look in newspaper sites to see whether we can still find a link to the same wire story, or failing that, find an alternative reference. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Same thing goes for most of the articles, there's a lot of dead links, not just AP. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you can't find a copy of a dead link, you can convert the citation to ((cite news)) in the article and remove the URL. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another possibility is to put the articles title (when given) exactly into Google, sometimes a newssite will appear which does not expire. Never use google.news and yahoo.news either. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Got an article from Paloma which doesn't last, can someone website it before it does? [1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to create an impact table for the 2007-08 Spac Season in my sandbox whilst i was making it up i noticed that it isnt useable outside of NHC or CPHC AOR. So is there another one that i could use for the Spac? Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact ive found a way of making it more accessable Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wooh! Now I can start adding the tables from the main one. I'll change the intensities to the regional intensities to make it uniform with the article. :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Or not, impulse again. Though that the talk section below this one had the answer, I thought wrong. Oh well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Acctully Cyclone give me five minutes i think i may off just figured our problem with the Impact tables outJason Rees (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive added some new User:Jason Rees/Sandbox Paramaters to the TC Stats to make the impact tables useable in all basins using offical scales. Below is a runthrough guide to it if theres a problem with any of the paramaters jsut shout or correct it yourselves. Jason Rees (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is mentioned somewhere else or meybe it's clear for the professionals but please what is the parameter Type1 or Type2 for and what does Use this only if you do not have MSW. mean. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically its for when storms like Tropical Depression 11F (07-08) where they did not upgrade the storm to a cyclone despite the wind speeds being above 35 kts or when a subtropical storm forms. Jason Rees (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also needed here 2006–07 Australian region cyclone season#Tropical Low Isobel. Isobel - a 50 mph low. Potapych (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. But still – what stands MSW for? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not 100% sure but could it be a Typo for MWS - minute wind speeds (ie 10,1,3). Jason Rees (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maximum sustained wind. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So it seems timelines have become the new goldmines for new articles to create (after last month's eruption of fish storm articles). For some seasons, I don't mind them at all, particularly the newer ones. There's got to be a limit, though.
Timeline of the 1914 Atlantic hurricane season - this was created tonight. There is no need whatsoever for that. I would ordinarily propose for a merger elsewhere, but since I'm not sure of the editor's motive, this warrants a project discussion.

My thoughts are that the article is pointless, and we need to put a cap on the timelines. Maybe limit it to any season without discussions? I'll have to think more about this. Please respond. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like the timelines, as they provide well-organized and easily-accessed information about storms and seasons in general. I'm not entirely opposed to having timelines for every season that can support one, and I'm not sure if the 1994 timeline is a bad idea. Once I got past the initial shock of a timeline for such an old, obscure season, I kinda liked the idea. If there has to be a limit, I'll agree to drawing the line at 1950. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I did overdo it by creating 1914 now that I think about it. However, drawing the line at 1950 seems early to me. For a season like 1887, a timeline could be used since it was such an active season, same goes for 1933. I do see why you think it's pointless though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I Sugest we put the limit at 1950 for now as that when the naming started with the Phonetic AlphabetJason Rees (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember, if we do agree to 1950, that doesn't mean we have to do every one from 1950 to now. If it seems like a season needs one, could benefit from one, or has enough information for one, then the page wouldn't have to be merged. Let's all be smart, and not create a useless set of guidelines. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wont fight a pointless cause ;) What should be done with the 1914 timeline? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it should exist, which means it should be redirected. However, that could be discussed further (such as putting the timeline in the article), if you wish. Granted, no season articles (save the current ones) have the timelines in the articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to see something I spent a lot of time (no pun intended) on be removed. I'm not really sure what to do with it. Merging sounds best even though none of the other articles have an included timeline section. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a merge to the season article would be best. While season articles usually don't include timelines, we can make an exception here, as both the season article and the timeline are fairly short in length. It seems that there should be a better way to fix it than redirect an encyclopedic and well-referenced article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (merging). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I have disappeared majorly from the project, but I do have something that is my will to finish. Back in 2006, I did a major disaster, writing and basically expanding the article on the 1962 Pacific typhoon season. I made the article a mess, with apparent OR and writing issues widespread. I am asking if we could, as a project (with me involved), help clean up the article and make it Good (possibly Featured) standard. I am of course, willing to help, but I can't do too much writing, but I can do the basics to help. I am wishing that we could collaborate as a project and make it a really good article. Anyway, if you want to help, I just need it. Thanks!Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and rewrite it, no need to request permission from the project. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not happening in a million years, I am in need of more than myself, especially that I cannot write too well. Again, if anyone is interested, just tell me.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to write it, I'm sure we could find enough people to. I, for one, am interested :) RockManQ ^(talk) 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll help.--Irmela08 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did the 2008 PHS fail the GA review? It is not January and if we get another storm we can always add it in. Besides, it is very unlikely that another storm will form. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Because it doesnt meet the Ga Critera. Jason Rees (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the comments given on the GA review before questioning the reasoning behind the quick-fail. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get a review of this article before December 5, as I will be generally unable to edit wikipedia between December 5 and 15. If not, I'll remove it from the GAC/GAN/GAR list on December 5, and re-add it for review on December 15. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is missing references for Sinlaku, Hagupit, Higos, and any storm after Higos. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just references??? Are you sure? User:Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter that it isnt sourced at the minutte when we all know its not OR and where the advisories are kept. Jason Rees (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is so far no disamb-page to the name Holly or did I look wrong? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I created it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bug 16085 has been solved and the images are now back with many thanks to Brion Vibber. Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for Brion! --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay! :D --brion (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Since we now have 11 Tropical Cyclone Naming lists, (5 in the SHEM, 6 in the NHEM.) I was wondering weather its worth splitting the Lists of tropical cyclone names into two seperate articles one for the Northern Hempishere and one for the Southern Hemisphere. Jason Rees (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It probably would be better to organize it. Lists of tropical cyclone names doesn't look that good... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The IBTrACS website has come online through NCDC this past week, and is the first centralized global database for tropical cyclones. The yearly track map backgrounds will look familiar. If you know or find, through your search in any of the older storms, if any best track information (six hourly fixes) exist in publications for areas like the eastern Pacific prior to 1949, or the western Pacific prior to 1945, contact them and they'll digitize the information and include the tracks on their global maps. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2003 Pacific hurricane season? Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. There's still only one FA (the main article). At least one other article, Ignacio or Marty, should be improved to FA before going for FT. Also, the article for Hurricane Nora is rated as start, which wouldn't help out at all. Good Topic is possible though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, each time I update the template for Martinique, its location within the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country article drops another section down the article. There is now a logjam of templates bunching near the Haiti section of the page. I'm at a loss for exactly why this is happenning, but I think the template coding may have an error in it. Can someone with more knowledge look into this for me? Thanks for whatever help you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done, hyphens are evil. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)