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.

I'm putting this here so we can easily copy/paste when we need to put warnings up:

===Warnings and watches===
((HurricaneWarnings))
((seealso|Tropical cyclone warnings and watches))
As of X p.m. EDT [[June 1]] (2100 UTC), the following warnings and watches were in effect:
*Coastal watches and warnings:
** A '''hurricane warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''hurricane watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
*Inland watches and warnings:
** x
* See the NHC's [dummylink latest public advisory on Hurricane X]
<div style="clear: both"></div>

Remove the coast/inland part if no inland ones exist. --Golbez 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No April Fool's joke, I think the project is in trouble, and quite simply it ain't what it used to be. In the previous year, we've made decent growth in the department of storm articles, with about 200 more articles, 18 more FA's, and a little less than twice the number of GA's. With all articles, we've made similar progress. We also have about 30 more editors, with a total of around 80 editors. Let's be honest, the entire "project" consists of about 5-8 members working independently, so why not make it official as that?

Are there too many rules? Is there too much pressure writing something great? I don't know, but it must be something that's causing only five editors or so to write articles. Consider this. Proposals for new Wikiprojects are required to have 5-10 active editors. This project has been around for over 2 years, and right now we barely have that.

Labeling it inactive would basically mean anyone can do what they want. As chaotic as that sounds, we're already basically doing that. There would be no page for merging, no assessment page, no unified force behind all 1300 articles in the project. Maybe the season article this year could develop organically by some outsiders? Maybe there'd be a lot less worry of getting things at GA/FA, and more focus on being just volunteers? Before you say we can't just close shop, think first before responding. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, as an alternative we discussed on IRC, perhaps we should get rid of the project bureaucracy? That means, no more project page for ACR (never had much of one anyway) and no more project merging page. Maybe try for more talk page comments. IDK, no one is saying much. I think the project is broken, and I'm up for ideas of how to fix it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the merging page is useful. It helps to trim back all the excess (if people don't reactively oppose all merges). I would consider anything that isn't retired, has set a significant record, or extremely destructive a fair candidate for merging. Potapych (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point in the first part, although I suppose (devil's advocate) that the merging would just be on the individual pages. I think I may have been emotional earlier, maybe frustrated at the lack of progress at the more important articles. Hell, with regards to the second part of what you said, it'd certainly shake things up, and maybe something would get done. At the very least, I think it's time to get a list of who's still here, which I posted below. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe people are just busy? I know I regularly check how things are going, but I barely have time to actually write anything nowadays, but I'm still available for questions... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

VOFFA and Hurricanekiller1994 appears to be active. Also HurricaneTyphoonCyclone and Jpuligan 12 might be a part of the project. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 00:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't go into all the details for personal reasons, but I had to take an extended break from Wikipedia, and I only recently (just last month) got all my hurricane sources again, so I couldn't have contributed even if I wanted to. But I will say I'm still active and interested in the Wikiproject. And before I forget, I apologize for any and all inconvenience I caused the people here. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Member list

Could anyone who's still active list themselves here? We have supposedly 80 people in the project, but there are less than a dozen people who I see as active members of the project. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the ball rolling. On IRC, myself, Juliancolton, Jason Rees, and Yellow Evan discussed what the scope of the project should be, as it is a bit unclear. Basically, we think it should be clarified to just

Officially classified tropical cyclones by any warning center, as well as the science behind them.

The only difference is that we're limiting it to officially classified tropical cyclones. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That proposed sentence is a little too unbroad because tropical cyclones that occurred far in the past, for example, Kamikaze would be excluded. Perhaps another clause something like:

or was considered a tropical cyclone in an article written in a scientific journal or publication

would ensure that storms from the far past are also included. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be enough clarification. That way, systems which have not been included in the reanalyses, but have papers written about them, can be included. This would include Catarina and a few of the med STs/TCs. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good to me. Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know that Alma's retirement yesterday means you have 3 months, or until 22nd July, to get the article to at least good and into the Retired Pacific hurricanes topic. Hope that's okay! - rst20xx (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PS thanks to Jason Rees for pointing this out - rst20xx (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Some systems have been retired for decades and are still Start class. Why the double standard? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a featured topic, so in order to stay featured, there is a 3 month grace period to get this new article up to standards. I'll be fixing up Alma in the coming weeks, I don't mind. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included in the FT without a source that says its retired. They could've removed it from the list because Alma has another meaning in Spanish. Potapych (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish meaning is "soul", which is pretty innocuous. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't consider Alma retired, when we also consider Gustav, Ike, and Paloma retired. Either way, we'll get confirmation in a few days to weeks, from the NHC or somewhere. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You can, but you can't leave out names like Adolph, Hazel, Knut, etc. if they were retired for similar reasons. (Plus you actually have a source that confirms their retirement[1].) This FT seems like the ones included were cherry picked. Potapych (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Alma technically isn't part of the FT yet, then :) There's no need to rush anything. We should know soon why Alma was retired. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It should come out of the article if this is the standard you are using:

Well, we know why it was removed, and that's why we're nitpicking over the name. We reserve storms having the main article for storms that were retired due to damage, and we know this isn't the case. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also confused as to why Fefa and Fico are in there. Potapych (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it sould be reserved for all storms that are retired.----Irdicent 23 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just emailed NHC, so hopefully we'll get a response. Here is what I wrote.

I am a hurricane researcher, and I am looking into some retired storms in the Eastern Pacific basin. First, will the National 
Hurricane Center be releasing a press bulletin announcing the retired names from last year? I saw the updated naming list, and I 
was wondering if those four names (Gustav, Ike, and Paloma in the Atlantic, and Alma in the Pacific) would be announced as being 
removed due to their damage.

I also have a question about some older ones, if you have the time and know the answer. Why were Hurricanes Fico and Fefa, in 1978 
and 1991 respectively, removed from their naming lists? Were they due to damage, or another reason? 

Hopefully they won't take too long to respond. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Word on the street was that Fico was retired because the name was offensive (I want to say in Italian or to Italians.) Gustav, Ike, and Paloma were retired with the names Gonzalo, Isais, and Paulette. I got that info by e-mail yesetdray. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)'

Some time ago, Hink e-mailed the CPHC about Fefa and Fico. The response is at Talk:List_of_retired_Pacific_hurricane_names#Ioke_and_Paka. A partial excerpt:

1. Ioke was retired because it was such a significant system, but also because it was an incorrect Hawaiian word. So you can considered it retired, but it would have been removed if it hadn't been retired because it had no Hawaiian meaning.
2. Paka was retired because of the destruction it caused in Guam in 1997.
3. We requested several names from the eastern Pacific including Daniel, Emilia, Estelle, Fabio, Gilma, Guillermo, Jimena, John, Jova, and Kenneth to be retired, but the World Meteorological Organization Region IV tropical Cyclone Committee (WMO RA IV TCC) decided not to retire any of these, so they were not changed.
4. For Hurricanes Fico and Fefa, in 1978 and 1991 respectively, I am not sure whether they were retired or removed. Please contact Lixion.A.Avila@noaa.gov at the National Hurricane Center who works with the WMO RA IV TCC on the retirement or removal of names from the lists for the eastern Pacific.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, and yea, I realize I never emailed the NHC about Fico/Fefa. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do that because you thought you were bugging Mr. Avila too much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you guys are saying is that some storm names were removed because of reasons other than damage? Does that still make them "retired"? I think the answer is no, and reading through the CPHC email above that seems to agree with this. Generally when I hear a storm name is "retired" I think it's because of damage. I feel this topic is viable but there might need to be some scope clarification, if "retired" can refer to storms that were removed for reasons other than damage - rst20xx (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think this distinction is already made perfectly clear in the lead - rst20xx (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I got a response from the NHC.

A press release discussing those names that are being retired from the
2008 Atlantic and Eastern Pacific lists will be issued in a few days.
Fico was left off the list after 1978 when the switch was made from all
male names to alternating between male/female names.  Fefa was left off
the list by request from some member countries of the WMO.  I do not
know of the reason.

I wanted a little more clarification, so I asked for clarification.

I thank you for your quick response, and I look forward to the press release. I am curious about "Fico" in 1978, since there were 
still other female names there ("Carlotta", "Emilia", etc.), and the list is otherwise identical to the list used in 1982. Is 
there any chance you could clarify that storm any more, or do you not know any further details? 

And this was the final response.

While we do not know the specific reason for the dropping of the name
"Fico" by the WMO Region IV Committee, we do know that the number of
female names on the six year rotation list  where cut in half, as male
names were alternated with female names beginning in 1979. Fico was
likely dropped in favor of the other three more common female names that
begin with the letter "F".

So, it appears Fefa was not retired, and it appears Fico was also not retired. Shall we take them off of the EPAC retired list? More importantly, perhaps, we'll get confirmation on Alma in a few days. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Erick (2007) FAR

I have nominated Tropical Storm Erick (2007) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's on AFD now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD closed as speedy keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Only because it wasn't considered an appropriate place to discuss a merger. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was still closed as speedy keep... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR closed as keep. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Why dosen't article say about their classification before it became a tropical cyclone? (etc. 94L) HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An invest is only issued by agencies related to the US government, so it would be pretty biased to include the classifications for the other basins. As for Atlantic and EPAC, we could add the numbers, but personally I'd rather not do it. The invest numbers are rarely, if ever, used in any official sense, such as in news reports or warnings. More importantly, they're only used for computer models, so there is a label for developing systems. In fact, User:thegreatdr said "Invests are mainly for the internal use of tropical cyclone warning centers", so I see no reason why we should take the time and effort to mention it in every article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2006 Central Pacific cyclone. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 00:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a one off since it didnt offically get assigned a number by the NHC/CPHC. Also outside the CPac numbers are used several times a season.Jason Rees (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be multiple 86-99C, 86-99E, 86-99W, or 86-99L system designations in any month, let alone a given year. Those designators are essentially meaningless, and merely a placeholder for a 01-49C, E, W, or L, in case the system is designated a tropical depression. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of place had copied stuff from wikipedia, like a lot of images of hurricanes (just search on google you'll see) and text (mostly on wunderblog). HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've a lot of mirror sites. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this was discussed before... else ... why this dab page is catogorized in all seasons categories affiliated with one of the storms on the disambiguation? IMO that's no help for the reader and wrong as well. If it was discussed before and decided to keep this, I will shut up. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all such dabs are categorized in a similar way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that, but I don't think it should be handled like this. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matthiasb that this is pointless overcategorization. The DAB page belongs to none of those categories. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• If I won't see any disagreement within a few days I will start to decategorize those DABs. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cyclonebiskit is on holiday until May 8, and has requested the FAC be withdrawn, unless someone is willing to take over. For reference, the main opposition to the article's promotion appears to concern prose and presentation. If someone does take over, leave a note on the FAC page so the delegates know not to withdraw it (and so I know whether to continue the review I began earlier!) All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been a bit of activity concerning this topic today alone within the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country and List of Atlantic–Pacific crossover hurricanes‎ articles today, and they're using different standards. For example, systems which have been deemed TCs in the Atlantic which reform in the eastern Pacific do not make the crossover list (which sounds like OR to me since the main warning center has stated otherwise). Also, systems which have shared the same area of low pressure are being deemed different tropical cyclones. I have no problem with the latter, as the warning centers have been clear concerning their nit-picky TC definitions (well-defined center and all that), and it would be WP:OR to argue otherwise (even with a supporting reference). The former concerns me though. What do you all think? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why is the first criterion being applied? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe the crossover article has always been organized that way. It does make for a short list. I'd check the article history. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which ones are the first ones? Would that be Anita, Gert, and Debby? HURDAT supports any statement that they crossed basins while still fully tropical cyclones. (That FAQ is a bit in error since Bret and Cosme technically dissipated, with Bret ending right at the coast.) Potapych (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought 17E was partly the remnants of 16. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bret was renamed the second it entered the eastern Pacific, which was the old (and seemingly current) policy. HURDAT is a good place to start...but since it doesn't cover systems in one ocean which became TDs in the other, it's only of limited use. We should also be using what the post storm/tropical cyclone reports say were systems which were tropical cyclones in the eastern Pacific which were spawned by Atlantic tropical cyclones. These facts are listed in both sets of TCRs, Atlantic and Pacific. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter whether the well-defined center dissipated over Central America/Mexico or not. Just because the well-defined center dissipated does not mean that the low pressure area once associated with the TC dissipated as well. A nit-picky nuance, which is covered in more recent years with the L in HURDAT, should individual hurricane specialists choose to use it. It's one of the corrections I've been making to the HPC version of the extended HURDAT online. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the lows sometimes cross over, but that happens more frequently than what's covered (I found several more looking through 1988 alone). We should restrict this to just the tropical cyclones that cross, which include closed surface circulations. Calling these other systems tropical cyclones is contradicting the definition established in tropical cyclone (Featured Article). I don't know if you've noticed, but that file[2] you posted a while back is a good source that also identifies lows with L (like in HURDAT). Look at the Anita-11 track[3] I just fixed with that file. The advantage this has over HURDAT is that it has many of the TDs. Potapych (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Including TDs was part of the point of that file, and to some degree, it will be utilized when the hurricane reanalysis reaches the 1960s-1980s. That file is still being updated, using hemispheric surface analyses on microfilm. =) However, if NHC says in a report that, for instance, four systems from the Atlantic Basin during the 1978 season became eastern Pacific cyclones (like they did), who are we to argue? That could be taken as original research, since you're not following what the regional specialized meteorological center stated in their reports. Length of the list should not be holding us back from including more systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the articel I find the following paragraph confusing, and I doubt that it is a translation problem on my side:

This listing is not entirely identical to the list of most intense Atlantic hurricanes. Some modern Category 5 hurricanes have readings higher than some "weaker" Category 4 hurricanes. The most intense Atlantic hurricane not to reach Category 5 intensity was Hurricane Opal with a pressure of 916 millibars. This value is lower than the minimum pressure of some Category 5s with reliable pressure readings, such as Hurricane Andrew. Below Opal's intensity, this listing is identical to the list of most intense Atlantic hurricanes. Above it, some Category 4s would be included.

The first three sentences are facts and they make sense, considering that intensity of a hurricane is measured by pressure but the SSHS is based on wind speeds. (And in the paragraph before the cited one was explained why storms with identic pressure can have different wind speeds.) But could anyone explain the causal relations between Opal's intensity and the differences between the both lists mentioned? I even think that the end of the paragraph is contradicting the statementes made before. Thus, the last two sentences should be somehow rewritten or removed. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Opal is the most intense Atlantic hurricane not to reach Category 5 intensity. Hence, all hurricanes with pressure below Opal's are Category 5's. Hence, if a list of every Atlantic hurricane was ranked by pressure, before Opal's pressure the list of Atlantic hurricanes by pressure would be identical to the list of Category 5's. Once Opal's pressure was reached, some Category 4's would be included, which would mean that the list of Category 5's and the list of Atlantic hurricanes by pressure would diverge and no longer be identical to each other. In short, since some Category 4's have minimum pressures below some Category 5's, a list of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes would not be the same as a list of most intense Atlantic hurricanes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PenguinCDF found this WMO document that shows Hurricane Gracie and Edna as not being retired and Hurricane Greta of 1978 as being retired. ----Irdicent 23 23:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the NHC names page (thank the goddess they actually update it now), Gracie is missing and Edna's only present in the latter half (Alphabetic naming), but what surprises me is Greta. There's no denying that it's a solid source (NHC operates as RSMC of the Atlantic by the WMO) and, inasfar as moving the page, it works as a source in my opinion, but the problem is that it's the ONLY source saying Greta's gone. No other sources I found say the same, and NHC also lists Edna, but lacks Gracie and Greta. So I might ask if someone, if they have the time, could email NHC about Greta. But what does everyone else think? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)== Hurricane Gracie ==

I have seen the article and before I send it to GAR, I want to see if you think this article is still a GA. I think it is not because that MH section is really short, even for the time era. Any thoughts on this? ----Irdicent 23 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

GAs don't have to be fully comprehensive, simply "broad", and the article seems quite broad for such an old storm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Before i get even more tempted to split 2009 PTS timeline off lets have a disscussion about weather we should have them as technically they are redundant as they are a repeat of the seasonal/storm articles. Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They should, as that section is a summary style expansion of the timeline sections of the seasonal articles, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have that section in the seasonal articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This section WP:AVOIDSPLIT could be minded a lot better. Look at all the articles that have ((Main)) in them followed by a stubby unreferenced section. Potapych (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They make be redundant, but they nicely summarize the vital information; the reader can now find exactly when a storm attained Category x status, without having to dig through entire sections of text. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to JR's. I think the timelines are rather redundant and unnecessary. I did a check, and I could find no other timelines that were similar in level of redundancy. All of the other featured timelines are on much broader subjects, and which could be just as easily titled as lists. Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814 could be "List of conflicts of the Adriatic campaign". Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons could be "List of discoveries...". Timeline of XX season is basically a "List of formations, strengthenings, weakenings, landfalls, extratropical transitions, and dissipations of storms in the XX season". Call me a deletionist, but Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For not being a directory of a collection of statistics, a number of wikipedia articles seem to violate this idea, and not just within the TC project either. While timelines, leads, even season summaries are repetitive with the text which lies within the article below, this format is what has become standard either within the project or wikipedia as a whole. While I generally like the leads and timelines within the articles, the season summaries (to me) can add an unneeded layer of repetition. At least timelines convey a significant amount of information within a graphic, and some of us are more graphically-oriented than text-oriented in our learning. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season could easily be retitled "List of cyclones of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season by date and time". Hence I feel compelled to reject the non-renamability argument for not having timelines. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. How many pages do we need on the same ten storms? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We aim to adequately cover all tropical cyclones; not to squeeze by with as little information as possible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem comes when we try to make one for seasons where there are Tropical disturbances missing from our records, for example 2006-07 South Pacific cyclone season has 3 such disturbances missing 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"List of storms of the 200X Atlantic hurricane season" began due to size issues with the 2005 season, and it later got generalized. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it describes the same, pretty much of redundancy got generalized. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've recently started to apply the "current event" guidelines to this template (since it adds articles to Category:Current events) and received some opposition (see User talk:Jason Rees#Template:Ongoing weather and the replies on my talk page), so I'd like to start a discussion here about whether the guidelines should exist in the first place, and whether they should be applied accordingly.

My position, obviously, is that these guidelines should exist and that they should be applied. Why? Let's have a look at why templates like this one were created in the first place: Template:Current - the first one of its kind - was initially created for articles about big, current events that received dozens of edits per minute. It was a note for our readers (and not our editors) that the article containing the template is being edited heavily (indicating that the article might contain vandalism, outdated information or that checking back in an hour might be a good idea). That spawned countless other templates (like this one) about anything that can be considered "current". For some reason, along the way, the initial idea of a "current event" template was forgotten, and the templates were being applied everywhere, as if there is a reason to notify our readers of anything that is currently ongoing. Not in the article itself, but in a box on top of that article. There is, quite frankly, no point in doing this, and I presume people are simply doing it because they think that's how it's always been done. It's not. So I've started to apply the guidelines from Template:Current to other "current" templates as well, which, IMHO, only makes sense. If it doesn't to you, I'm more than happy to listen to the counter-arguments and discuss this. --Conti|✉ 09:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea: since the entire season articles don't change rapidly when storms are active, what if we only applied the current template to the sections of active storms? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? I would imagine that most of what I said above would be true for current storms, too. If there is rapid change/massive editing involved (thus warranting a warning to our readers), I wouldn't mind that. Then again, such storms would probably deserve their own articles, and the template should therefore be used on those articles, and not on subsections. --Conti|✉ 11:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A current storm threatening land, which does not yet have an article, would certainly change rapidly. Storm sections in season articles update every 6 hours with new advisory info, so that info does change fairly rapidly. Sometimes there is a period of time before someone feels like creating an article, thus there is a good opportunity for the template (perhaps the ongoing weather one, or possibly the regular current one; I brought this up more for the project to talk about it). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Who got the idea that it is acceptable to have a 1.44MB animated gif banner image for a WikiProject? I go to someone's user page for an unrelated reason and it takes nearly 2 minutes to load (slow wikiservers, not my DSL connection). And some of us do pay per Megabyte. dramatic (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of them; see WP:BANNER. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But they are all (or at least the 10 random examples I checked) far below 300k. Most of them (9 out of 10) are far below 100k. 1.44MB is way too much. --Conti|✉ 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I suppose you could ask Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) to change it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines on WP:BANNER say a few hundred KB max (the irony is that that banner would be 50k as flash, but Wikipedia won't allow proprietary technologies). Anyway, the page showed me how to block all banners, but that doesn't help the majority of users who are not logged in.dramatic (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I doubt anyone from this project knows how to fix it. Maybe asking the people at the Banner pages? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The lowest I can get it to without too much quality loss is 594 KB. Shall I upload over the current image? -- RattleMan 22:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can get it down to 368 KB with a lower-quality-but-still-sorta-acceptable version. -- RattleMan 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/2008atcr/2008atcr.pdf - Recently released with Nargis, Fengshen, Sinlaku, Fame and Gula, being described as intresting systems.Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/FA statistics, 2009 is proving to be the least productive year in the project's history. Only six featured articles have been promoted since January 1, whereas 2008 saw over 20 in a comparable time period. Additionally, we're in one of the longest FA-droughts in project history. Just some food for thought. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at our wikiproject statistics, the past 12 months has been our most productive year for GAs. I wouldn't consider it a non-productive year just based on FAs alone. Even if you did, 40 FAs in the past 12 months is still not bad, nor our lowest 12 month total, though it is about half of number which were promoted between April 2007 and April 2008. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems kinda redundant with Category:Off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones. What should be done about it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, it should be renamed Category:Atlantic tropical cyclones in December, since it doesn't seem to be getting used for non-tropical storms (and I don't think such a category is needed). Second, maybe this category should be made a sub-category of Category:Off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones, and we could make categories for January, February, March, April, and May. Just my thoughts. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are only a handful of off-season Atlantic TC's, and most of them are in December or May. January would only have 3, February 1, March 1, and April 2. I think it's overcategorization. It appears the only reason it's called "Atlantic cyclones in December" and is not part of "Off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones" is so the category can include storms that formed in November but lasted until December, notably Hurricane Epsilon (2005). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD them bothJason Rees (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Both? I think there is purpose for the generic "Off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Theres no need for it when we already have Tropical cyclones classifed in the seasons they form in (bar Zeta and Alice for obvious reasons). Why should ATL be any different to the EPAC, SPAC, AUS and the SWIO basins where clear seasons are defined? Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a category for off-season storms in the other basins, as they're just as rare/important. Often, the storms have info because they were climatological outliers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We could do it for other basins as we go back in time but not yet as we have only really started working on articles for the SHEM this year (SHEM TC Year).Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this brings up the question of whether we should have categories for every month of the year. (Though I expect this idea will be soundly shot down.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you do it for all basins, NoJason Rees (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant to copy the below response again, but I'll agree with JR, there's no need. We already have pretty excessive categorization (basin and strength). I can't imagine a Category:Atlantic tropical cyclones in September, not to mention that many storms spend time in more than one month. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be divided up by basin, but rather Category:Tropical cyclones in September. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be just as immense. My biggest qualm for a worldwide monthly category is that it only categorizes the storm articles, meaning the listing would be heavily populated by the Atlantic and EPAC. I would go out on a limb that Atlantic and EPAC storm articles heavily outnumber every other basin from May to December. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We could use something like TemplateTiger, like is used for Wikipedia:Persondata... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we now have a rule that seasonal articles are set up 2 months before the start of the relevant TC year and need to be in place before the start of the TC year i have started to build the SHEM articles for 2009-10. If anyone wants to help any help is appreciated. Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the long-forgotten about template, updated to the most recent web address. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it really worthy of an article ? - can it not be merged into RSMC since both Wellington and BoM are RSMCs anyway for other purposes?.Jason Rees (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

...we're off! :D → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A minute early though Dylan :P Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After some edit warring on Talk:2009 Atlantic hurricane season, I guess it's time to post here. In my opinion, we should be focusing our efforts on the current articles, as that's what people really care about. A few editors agree, so it'd be good if we could establish consensus either way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Why is this article rated anything other than mid importance? Only one TD has formed (and maybe an unnamed TS), and the forecast numbers are for average, which are far below the average of the past 14 years. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I felt that active seasons should have top importance. They are the articles that need the most updating as information changes rapidly. Once a season ends, it can be lowered depending on how notable the article is. Make sense? Seddσn ^talk 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this page explaining importance, the highest importance this page could ever achieve is high. This page is not a must-have for an encyclopedia. Read up on the wikipedia importance criteria, please. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree JC - the importance critera say that to be top a page must be a must have page which the seasons arent IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 season is in my opinion essential to this project, regardless of what a print encyclopedia would have. Importance = priority, and we need to, within reason, prioritize the current seasons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The only exceptions I could see included into top criteria for season articles are years such as the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, or 1992 Pacific hurricane season, which had record activity for a TC basin. No one is arguing that the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season is not essential for this project. All season articles are essential for this project, even if they occurred in the Nineteenth century, or Siglo XIX, which people seem to forget, outside of HurricaneHink and Miss Madeline, of course. I sympathize with those who also have to wait 6-7 weeks for GA reviews. An article can be important to our project, but not be TOP criteria for wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with DR. Under that criterion, all current storms (including the useless fishspinners) would be Top-Class until they dissipated. I do not agree with that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should active season articles top importance? Way more people will search Katrina/Andrew/Wilma/Ike than the season articles. Plus, nothing happened in Epac, and the Atlantic only have one (possible 3) sub/tropical cyclones. I think only when the season is near the top and have a few of the devastating storms active should really deserve top. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in August of 2008, the current AHS was viewed 145,000 times, but Wilma was less than half then that; same with Andrew. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed an old storm article had half the readership of a current season article. I truly didn't expect that result, thinking that individual storm articles had much less readership. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No one will bother looking at the old storms, even the 1900 storm. Everyone are eager to edit active ones. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Sure, people might be more interested in learning about current storms, but they won't completely forget about the 1900 hurricane. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm always late to these kind of discussions, but I too disagree with a top-importance ranking. "Importance" is a stationary thing, really meant for after the event. Although, if this season ended now, it might get a "High" ranking from me for having no named storms :-D -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)