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.

Just thought I'd let the project know - ((Hurricane disambig)) is nominated for deletion (I did it). Considering that this is a deprecated template that's not transcluded anywhere, I don't expect that this will be controversial, but I still should let you all know. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Plasticup has suddenly stopped editing, no one has been around to finish the review comments for Tropical Storm Gamma. I would rather not fail this article and let it sit around again so if someone would be kind enough to take over for Plasticup and finish up the article, I would be happy to keep the GAN going. Since I know this wont be replied to immediately, I'm keeping the article up at GAN for a week to allow someone to take over and when someone does, I'll give them another week to complete it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have come with a concern that's been bothering me. Lately, (over the last year and a half), different users on IRC and in individual season articles for jargon term "calling" an article. I have a feeling that calling an article for writing is inciting too much competition. I also believe we're starting to create articles for unnotable storms during its lifetime. Although people believe models, they aren't always correct or reliable, and should not be used in determining an article's creation. This incites that the storm may not end up doing anything, and therefore the article serves on a worthless storm. I would prefer that consensus be decided and that the storm had some kind of precursor effect for a storm is planned to affect land or make a record.Mitch/HC32 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what you propose. Good luck coming to a consensus though. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been saying this in the IRC, but why don't we have a WPTC articles for creation? For example, if a person wants an Article on Felicia, then he/she can make his case on WP:WPTC/AFC/Felicia or something like that? Members of the project can discuss this and see what is decided. For all the people who say it will not work, do you have any proof of this? Darren23 (Contribs) 04:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have it hereWikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Article_requests, but it hasn't really been used since 2006-07 --Anhamirak 12:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, if system doesn't work, can't we try another one? Darren23 (Contribs) 12:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Might work, but we need more active members before going ahead.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] I am fixing infoboxes for the old SWIO seasons in this sandbox, and I found a "little" problem, I have a storm, Heather of 1992 that is not in the JTWC ATCR or International Best Track. The only place that I can find it in is the MFR best track for the storm: [2] that places it as a 90 knot Intense Tropical Cyclone with 930 mbar. That seems dubious because the JTWC did not monitor it at all. Any thoughts?

--Anhamirak 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have a dig around some of my BT sources for the SHEM and see if i can find something out, though one thing i have noticed is that sometimes the JTWC dont apply the names.Jason Rees (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at Cyclone Harriet it seems to tie in. Jason Rees (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in their BT though, I just found it on Unisys. It's TC 20S Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Anhamirak 02:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs eyes. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it holds the record for precipitations, shouldn't that storm be on the requested articles page? I don't claim to know much about the subject but it seems odd to leave this one out. 173.176.2.65 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources seem to be a bit sparse beyond a small blurb about the rainfall record. This paper appears to hold some good information which could make an article, but it requires a fee to view. Anyone subscribed to Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In French, there are decent sources (though limited in scope). The most complete is [revues.education.gov.mg/revues/revues/pdfxfiles/rev-geo38(7).pdf this article] which is most definitely a scholarly source. Bits and pieces can also be recovered from [www.meteorologie.eu.org/mothy/surcotes/dppr_om/Drmre_f.pdf] [3] [4]. In English there's this map of the cyclone's path. I do have access to the paper you mentioned and I can send it to you if you're interested. There's quite a bit of data there though I have no idea what it means! 132.203.241.157 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, one of the problems of Wikipedia, is that sources become hard to find the later you wait to write an article. User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 16:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Translations: [5] the other source does not make much sense.--Anhamirak 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the merging proposal at commons:Category:Tropical cyclone tracks. Though it seems not appropriate the actual cat structure there needs some refurbishing. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am translating some articles about Tropical cyclones and I've a question. When you use the term "billion" in yours articles, that meaning use:

• 1,000,000,000 (number), one thousand million, 10⁹, in the commonly used short scale
• 1,000,000,000,000 (number), one million million, 10¹², in the long scale.

It's very important because in a lot of languages use 10¹² to refer billion.--KRLS (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its one of those things thats up to the editor but i just presume it refers to a billion it is 10⁹.Jason Rees (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point. Europeans use the long scale and Americans use the short scale. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, because it's one of the fundamental differences between the cultures, other than the comma or dot thing for the decimal point. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And it's one of the most common mistakes in the press and/or wikipedia. For most Europeans a billion are 1000 milliards. However, in the context of cyclones a billion cannot be understood in the long range. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Most TC articles I've seen are using the short scale (a thousand millions), particularly when data comes from NWS RSMCs. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by the USRD county challenge, I propose a challenge of our own:
To write or expand a stub/start article to GA status from each of the 8 (eight) basins, all of which must be mid-importance or higher
Season articles are allowed, and to avoid bias, the GA reviews cannot be done from anyone else in the competition. Any articles to be expanded must be start or stub class at of the start of the challenge. Interested? Then sign up! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, yes, Central Pacific is included, despite its few number of articles. For an article from that basin, it can either be an EPAC season that had at least one CPAC storm, a new CPAC article (which could be low-importance, but it had to affect land), or improve a start/stub article that was in the CPAC.

Also, to mark your progress, put your name in bold, as seen below, and list the basin, followed by the storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am having a hard time finding EPAC storm that is not too old. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Participants

1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Cyclonebiskit 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Jason Rees (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
4. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
5. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
6. --Yue ^{of the North} 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

• Atlantic - 1924 Cuba hurricane (new)
• Eastern Pacific - Hurricane Tara (1961) (new)

Cyclonebiskit

• Atlantic —
• East Pacific — Hurricane Kiko (1989) (new)
• Central Pacific —
• Western Pacific —
• Northern Indian Ocean —
• Australia —
• South Pacific — Cyclone Nancy (new)
• South-West Indian —

Jason Rees

• Atlantic —
• East Pacific —
• Central Pacific —
• West Pacific — Tropical Storm Halong (2008)
• South Pacific - Cyclone Xavier (2006) (new)
• Australian —
• Northern Indian Ocean - Cyclone Nisha (Start)
• South-West Indian —

Juliancolton

• Atlantic — 1993 Atlantic hurricane season
• East Pacific — 1993 Pacific hurricane season
• Central Pacific —
• West Pacific —
• South Pacific —
• Australian —
• North Indian —
• South-West Indian —

HurricaneSpin

• Atlantic —
• East Pacific — 1980 Pacific hurricane season (Stub/Mid) User:HurricaneSpin/Sandbox1
• Central Pacific —
• West Pacific —
• South Pacific —
• Australian —
• North Indian —
• South-West Indian —

Hurricane Angel Saki

• North Atlantic — Tropical Storm Amelia (1978) (Start/Mid)
• East Pacific — Tropical Storm Octave (1983) (New)
• Central Pacific — Hurricane Uleki (1988) (New)
• West Pacific —
• South Pacific —
• Australian — Cyclone Monty (New)
• North Indian —
• South-West Indian —

Titoxd

• North Atlantic —
• East Pacific — 1992 Pacific hurricane season (Start/High)
• Central Pacific —
• West Pacific —
• South Pacific —
• Australian —
• North Indian —
• South-West Indian —

Yellow Evan

• North Atlantic —
• East Pacific —
• Central Pacific —
• West Pacific —
• South Pacific —
• Australian —
• North Indian —
• South-West Indian —

Hi everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members who are familiar with how the WikiProject works and its history and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind answering some questions on the wikiproject.Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be able to help as well if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to answer any questions too Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've prepared some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/WikiProject report; responses (on that page) from anyone here would be very appreciated. Thanks again! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When the severe weather article structure recently became unwieldy, a couple of us decided to tackle the thunderstorm article, which is of some interest to this project. It was delisted as a GA in October 2006 and looks ready to regain GA status. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am curious of about joining this project about tropical cyclones, and as a Filipino living in a typhoon zone, I'd like to contribute about typhoons in our basin. Typhoon activity is so high there, that the strongest storm Typhoon Tip formed in the basin and its rainbands affected the Philippines in 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Jazer 13 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 2009 AHS section in the ACE table, and Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) reinserted it. I want to see how most of WPTC members opinions at should we put current seasons in the ACE table?. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I go to the article for is to see how the current season is faring against historical seasons. It doesn't look like there's any lack of people to update it, so I don't see why to not have it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But can't we do that at the end of the season, when the 2009 AHS season is over and we can compare it? Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't we do what? We can't really provide fairly up-to-date tracking of the ACE of the current season after it's over. It's not old-school encyclopedic, but I think it's something that a lot of people go to that article looking for, and it doesn't hurt anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All data for this year is preliminary and operational; there will likely be changes to the official intensity of certain storms during the post-season reanalysis, so the information currently in that article may be inaccurate and subject to potentially confusing changes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I remove the 2009 AHS section from ACE now? Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 23:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes because it is not a stable enough number, add it at the end of the season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The information in that article is massively inaccurate, but pre-satellite they were the best numbers available. As for this season, it's probably a lot more accurate than many of those old seasons. The NHS is going through the data and re-analysing old seasons, so there will be potentially confusing changes, not only in the 2009 section. And three separate editors (not counting me) have updated that section since the 2009 line was first deleted, so I suspect that keeping it deleted is going to be difficult.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Juliancolotn was talking about 2009 AHS, as the TCR's or the BT data have not come out. No major editors (I mean respected autoconfirmed editors) have updated it. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep the ACE. The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread the human sum of knowledge. In fact, Crazy and Keith Ediks are updating it daily. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

And? Sorry, but that is irrelevant to what we're discussion. The information is still in the 2009 AHS article, and would be re-added to the list once the season is over. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No "major editors"? I would point out that the Wikipedia exclusion of non-"major editors" is a subject of great concern in places; to dismiss work done on the sole grounds that it's not done by a "major editor" is not a good thing, and discourages new editors from contributing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the ACE article. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 02:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think it is a bad idea to remove the ACE of the current season from the table. While it is correct that it is an ongoing event and the numbers may not be accurate this argument seems a bit flawed to me. Going by this argument the whole article on the 2009 atlantice hurricane season would need to be removed and couldn't be added prior to the end of the season. I think the old way was fine, by including the current season and marking it as current possibly with an added footnote about how the numbers are preliminary. Regardless for information purposes it is very helpful to have the current number somewhere close to the list so that comparisons can be made. Maybe a possibility would be to add an extra line listing the current ACE without sorting it into the table itself. Hadoriel (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Going by this argument the whole article on the 2009 atlantice hurricane season would need to be removed and couldn't be added prior to the end of the season." No because the storm infomation isnt rapidly gonna change overnight unlike ACE.

"I think the old way was fine, by including the current season and marking it as current possibly with an added footnote about how the numbers are preliminary. Regardless for information purposes it is very helpful to have the current number somewhere close to the list so that comparisons can be made." I dont think its that usefull to be honest and besides 1 you cant source other wiki articles and two ACE is meant to be a stable page unlike the seasons. Jason Rees (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually storm information can change much more rapidly than the ACE and the very inclusion of the historical table on the ACE page makes it more than just a simple definition page. As far as usefulness is concerned this a somewhat pointless debate because apparently at least some people find it useful. Hadoriel (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the point it saying "I dont think its that usefull"; we've told you we find it useful, which should end that part of the questioning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this, as a compromise? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As compromises go I think that would work Hadoriel (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On the 2009 WPac seasonal article. A user, Typhoon2009 showed TCNA coding for JMA Tropical Depressions that gave clear numberings of the depressions. However, other users want to use the older method. I just want to see what the consensus is for this. --Anhamirak 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there enough consensus in the past? Forgive me, but the current method is far more superior in my opinion. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 02:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Superior? but superior is different from official. Even if you think you have a more superior mind than JMA, what JMA assigns is official and what you assign is NOT. Encyclopedia is for something official, no matter it is superior or stupid in your mind.Typhoon2009 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO: The TCNA numbers cut out a load of significant depressions (Auring, and TD 20 are the ones that come to mind) and is only assigned when the TD is expected to intensify further. Where as the system we are currently used incorperates all of the depressions monitored by the JMA this year and can be backed up using the WWJP25s and GP. Also it is as far as i am aware our mission to cover all the Depressions during the year. Jason Rees (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like JMA does what NHC does. In any event, we should try to include all known tropical depressions since we deal with multiple warning centers in the western Pacific basin, even if JMA is the RSMC. It makes working on western Pacific season articles a chore, but it does make sure the articles are complete. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if you incorporates all the depressions, it doesn't mean that your numbers are valid. Anything not numbered by JMA should be kept unnumbered. If there is a depression, say, named by PAGASA but not numbered by JMA, then just state PAGASA's name without a number. If there is no official designation, simply not to use any name or number. eg. CWB tropical depression.Typhoon2009 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Let's make another comparison, suppose we have TD 1 in an Atlantic season. Then, in post-season analysis, NHC recognize a TC before TD 1. Will you renumber TD 1 to TD 2? Of course not, even if it's not the first TD in the season. Even if TD x is in fact the y-th TD from your point of view, you are not allowed to call it TD y in an encyclopedia, as long as the official designation is TD x. Typhoon2009 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actully we are allowed because the NHC bumps them down by one. also the numbers are ok to use since it is a simple calculation that is considered Routine. Jason Rees (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in here on the side of Typhoon2009. JMA does not equal RSMC. Some JMA products are not RSMC products. Not everything JMA does is "official" for the basin. JMA is tasked by the WMO to warn for 35-kt storms. When JMA sees one in 24 hours, they'll warn on RSMC products. Otherwise for 30-kt non-incipient storms and <30-kt non-precision (whole degree position) systems, they're simply standards based on internal/domestic policies with no international value of "officialness". If the official RSMC for the region doesn't count TDs (however defined), why should we do it so officially? Remember, whether TDs are TCs has no international standard. Aus BoM, no. Japan, no. Korea, no. Taiwan, no. Hong Kong, yes. U.S./Micronesia, yes. Philippines, yes. Making our own number is stupid. Why not just say "JMA TD of September 11-13"?

We cannot get consistent correlation between 10-minute wind and 1-minute wind, which ain't the fault of science but the fault of different agencies' policies. In the end, whatever JT says (1-min), it is; and whatever JMA says (10-min avg), it also is. Why can't we have two counts of TCs? JMA's TS+ number and JTWC's TD+ number. A Chinese or a Filipino cannot call an American rich because the American makes the legal minimum wage of 50 yuan or 400 pesos an hour. If JMA doesn't care for the continuity of TDs, we can't just count all three kinds of TDs and say there are 40 TCs a year! JMA's "currency" and "standards of living" should not make the WNP basin a TC "rich" basin! HkCaGu (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actully the JMA is tasked to monitor ALL tropical depressions regardless of this crap about the RSMC being tasked to monitor storms that are above 35 kts and do count how many TDs form in a season. Also the problem with saying TD 23/9/08 to 25/9/08 is that we would never be able to get an agreement about which date format to use etc and the SAREP leaves out some significant depressions which is why it is fine to Routinly count how many depressions have formed. Also we already do have two counts of numbers ALL Depressions, JMA TS JTWC TS.Jason Rees (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If a problem with saying TD 23/9/08 to 25/9/08 is that we would never be able to get an agreement about which date format to use. Then, your counting will create a much more severe problem------continuity. A simple question, is Linfa and its precedent TD the same system? If you checked WWJP25s, the TD was downgraded to Low Pressure Area before regeneration. From my past experience, there is a distinct possibility that JMA will consider them separate. There is no clue at this stage and I'm waiting for the annual report. Numbering the systems in your own way actually creates lots of confusion, especially when you are quoting a different number as what is appearing in RSMC product.Typhoon2009 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by SAREP leaves out some significant depressions. From my experience, some of those unnumbered systems could produce damage as severe as those unnumbered tropical wave in Atlantic. However, it doesn't imply that you can add unofficial numbers to them. If you can number something because you think it is significant, are you going to number those gale-producing tropical waves in Cariabean Sea? Are you going to number those strong extratropical lows off US East Coast? Just "you think something is significant" doesn't justify you to assign unofficial numbers in an encyclopedia.Typhoon2009 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"A simple question, is Linfa and its precedent TD the same system? If you checked WWJP25s, the TD was downgraded to Low Pressure Area before regeneration." - Yes they are it was a simple regeneration and i dont belive the numbers cause confusion since we all know a Tropical Depression is not . "I'm not sure what you mean by SAREP leaves out some significant depressions. From my experience, some of those unnumbered systems could produce damage as severe as those unnumbered tropical wave in Atlantic." Achoo Tropical Depression 20 caused quite a bit of damage over what a tropical wave could do." Also im not numbering something just because i think its significant (unlike you) im numbering them by when a tropical depression is declared to off formed in the WWJP25 bulletin which is a better way of doing it than the SAREP numbers which arent even assigned to the depression untill it is expected to intensify into a tropical storm. "Are you going to number those gale-producing tropical waves in Cariabean Sea? Are you going to number those strong extratropical lows off US East Coast? Just "you think something is significant" doesn't justify you to assign unofficial numbers in an encyclopedia." No im not going to be assigning numbers to Tropical Waves because they have not been declared as a Tropical Depression by the NHC who are the only forecasting agency in the Atlantic for TCs and i quite agree that if something is significant it doesnt justify a number but im assigning numbers to tropical depressions regardless of where they form or weather they hit land which isnt OR because its a routine calculation.Jason Rees (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all the arguments I have decided to stick with my prior comment(s)and I support the current system used per Jason Rees. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Something is significant doesn't justify a number. That's why you shouldn't assign unofficial numbers that are different from what JMA assigns. The numbers cause does cause confusion because they are different from what JMA is using. Any weather events not numbered by an official agency should be left unnumbered in Wikipedia because it is officially unnumbered. No matter it is tropical low, tropical depression, extratropical low, high or any weather systems you can find in the marine forecast, the situation is the same.Typhoon2009 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

"Something is classified as a tropical depression" does't mean that a number has to be assigned. An unofficial number doesn't help readers at all and it confuses readers when it is different from the official designation. From JMA's perspective, the significance of a weak TD is nothing different from an extratropical low and hence they both do not warrant a number. When JMA refers to a particular TD or extratropical low, dates are always quoted.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've almost forgotten that JMA actually publishes the best track track maps. As the best track of Linfa shows TD formation in South China Sea, which is perfectly sensible based on their WWJP25 bulletins. I'll separate the precedent TD from Linfa now.Typhoon2009 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Something is significant doesn't justify a number. That's why you shouldn't assign unofficial numbers that are different from what JMA assigns. The numbers cause does cause confusion because they are different from what JMA is using. Any weather events not numbered by an official agency should be left unnumbered in Wikipedia because it is officially unnumbered. No matter it is tropical low, tropical depression, extratropical low, high or any weather systems you can find in the marine forecast, the situation is the same. "Something is classified as a tropical depression" does't mean that a number has to be assigned. An unofficial number doesn't help readers at all and it confuses readers when it is different from the official designation. From JMA's perspective, the significance of a weak TD is nothing different from an extratropical low and hence they both do not warrant a number. When JMA refers to a particular TD or extratropical low, dates are always quoted.Typhoon2009 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Acctully there are no offical numbers as otherwise it would be used in ALL JMA Bulletins, thus it is jusitfied for when a depression forms to add a number based on its postion on the season even if you think its unoffical and not right to do. Also per the JTWC JMA and PAGASA Linfa is the same system as the weak TD so ive had to RV your edit. Jason Rees (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think there are no offical numbers, the all TDs should be kept unnumbered because they are officially unnumbered. It is exactly the same situation as tropical waves, extratropical lows, etc, which are all officially unnumbered.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

JMA clearly upgraded Linfa as a new TD in South China Sea.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Same system - Just downgraded to an LPA before travelling across the phillippines.Jason Rees (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No. JMA best track shows TD formation in South China Sea so it is a new TD, not a continuation of the precedent one.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is the same TD - the JMA BT never shows the pre Depresion stagein their BT like for Dolphin last year. It was upgraded to a TD then downgraded then upgraded again and was the same system.Jason Rees (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

They are different systems. Essentially, there's nothing called 'regeneration' in JMA's dictionary. The weakest stage in JMA best track is TD. If a system has to retain its designation, it needs to be at least a weak TD. If a system is downgraded to LPA, then it essentially marks the end of its life. If anything develop from this LPA, it is typically classified as a separate system. I don't rule out the possibility to re-analyse the LPA stage and upgrade to TD. However, this is not the case for Linfa and I have never seen this happens since I regularly check JMA's warning and summary, SAREP and best tracks. If the TD attains 30kt both before and after LPA stages, separate serial IDs are given. That's what I've observed these years.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont care what you think its not a reliable source nor is your image BT. Linfa was tracked by the JTWC and the JMA to be the same system. End off Jason Rees (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

JMA best track shows TD formation in South China Sea so the TD in South China is NEW. They are NOT the same system.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The JMA BT has not been released yet which means we have to use operational data. Jason Rees (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Best track track map for Linfa has been uploaded on JMA web site. STS Linfa originates as a TD in South China Sea. Operationally, Linfa was also upgraded to TD on June 17 in South China Sea.Typhoon2009 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough source.Jason Rees (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WWJP25 and best track track map both show TD formation in South China Sea. On the other hand, you can't present any source that JMA treats it as a continuation of the TD east of the Philippines.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Acctully the WWJP25s are on my side not yours and as such it is one depression. Jason Rees (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The WWJP25s upgraded Linfa in South China Sea clearly. The old WWJP25s can be found quite easily. WWJP25s are NOT on your side.Typhoon2009 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The lowest resolution of the links is here. The page which has all the links is here. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice it will save me some dough :) Jason Rees (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The project needs to be aware that their are two categories for deleation going on at the minute. Both involve the naming of the SWIO basin as a whole.

1) [6] 2) [7]

Jason Rees (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest that the experts here focus a bit on that article. It appears likely that there were hundreds of deaths in the Phillipines (73 confirmed as of now), and that this is a megadisaster whose scope will become clear over the next week. (The satellite convection maps showed all of Luzon black for hours. Since that's mountainous terrain, news will be slow to get out and some of the worst flooding may be yet to come.) Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Theirs a lot of eyes on the PTS at the minute so im sure it will be taken care off.Jason Rees (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on DEP, I came across 2009 International Series hurricane season, which looks to be a listing of names already discussed in articles such as 2009 Pacific hurricane season and 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. I really don't know enough about hurricanes (don't live in an area where we ever have them -- we whine about 30 mph winds here) to know if there's a good redirect target, if this title just needs to be fleshed out, or if it needs deletion. Hopefully someone here can take a look a sort it out. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dylan620 --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob, FT. :) --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I just downloaded a program that access archived NEXRAD data back to 1993 (I think), so I'm now able to create animations such as File:Hurricane Isabel NEXRAD radar animation.gif. Feel free to let me know if you have any candidates for new animations in mind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some suggestions:

• Hurricane Katrina
• Hurricane Charley
• Hurricane Frances
• Hurricane Floyd
• Hurricane Gustav
• Tropical Storm Allison
• Hurricane Wilma
• Hurricane Paloma
• Hurricane Opal
• Hurricane Fran
• Hurricane Mitch
• Hurricane Ivan
• Hurricane Georges
• Tropical Storm Fay (2008)
•  Done Hurricane Jeanne - File:Hurricane Jeanne NEXRAD radar animation.gif
• Hurricane Gordon (1994)

I'm willing to help, if you'd like. :) --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea, but, wouldn't we need to credit the manufacturers of the program which does this, nullifying the free use image criteria within wikipedia? It could be a copyright problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The program is a free download from NCDC/NOAA, so it shouldn't be a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If we use JMA for the Season Effects tables in Pacific typhoon season articles, shouldn't we use it for the PTS timeline graphics too? Should we maintain consistency? Darren23^Edits|Mail 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer using the SSHS for the timeline graphics since the JMA do not go higher than a Typhoon and it looks better.Jason Rees (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a JTWC typhoon which is a typhoon by JMA and saying it looks better is like saying lets change every storm into a Cat 5 because it looks better. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking better should certainly not be the criteria, whatever that means. We should use JMA intensity when available. There are going to be systems classified by HKO and PAGASA where JMA intensity is not available, however. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

David - why shouldnt looking better be apart of the criteria since we are disscussing an image not a piece of writing. Also we use JMA data until it becomes a Typhoon and then we use C1 to 5 and i prefer that system for the timeline as indeed it does look better than pasting the JMA typhoon colour on to a grey backround. Jason Rees (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking better is subjective, which is problematic semantically. Since JMA is the operational center, we should use JMA. However, using a 10-min wind criteria, would change the Saffir-Simpson classification from what we're used to, wouldn't it? I think you'd still be able to get cat 4s and 5s if you adjusted SS for 10-min winds. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an idea that I've seen WP:MILHIST use – what if WPTC had its own coordinators (consisting of one lead coordinator and five co-coordinators)? Just a thought. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 01:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What does a coordinator do or can do, is it like a special right or something? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the MILHIST page, coordinators are in charge of processes of that project. I see no reason why WPTC can't utilize coordinators as well. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 01:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the lack of active members in the project. And what processes is there a need to be controlled in WPTC? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no real point to coordinators for a project with our activity level. MILHIST needs them because they're bigger than some language Wikipedias... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with D23 and Tito here. We really only have five active editors; everyone can already do anything; we can't keep processes such as ACR alive, so I doubt we'd be able to even properly elect a set of coordinators; and there's really no need. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As of the past few months, GANs have been sitting longer and longer without review within the project, apparently due to the slow dropout of people from the met and TC projects as a whole. Julian and I were discussing this on his talk page, and we think we found a palatable way of resolving this problem. We should institute a policy of not submitting more GAN candidates than people are willing to review. This would mean, for instance, if you submit 4 articles for GAN, you should be willing (or able) to review 4 articles up for GAN in the meantime, which would expedite the process of review as well. This way we can avoid coming up with an arbitrary number to limit GAN requests, and resolve our backlog at the same time. Articles could still be improved enough for GAN in the meantime...but it would delay their GA nominations until the queue was flushed out. The assumption made here is that people who improve articles to GA status will be able to review articles for GA as well. What does the project think? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is reasonable, but it raises the possibility of quid quo pro occurring... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that a problem within wikipedia? I don't think any of us will pass articles merely because someone passed theirs. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In my expierence of the WPTC will not just pass articles merely because someone passed theirs. They will give it a througher review Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The WMO Website has had a bit of a revamp, and will now have on there links to all of the offical BTS since 2004. Also worth noting is that the RSMCs and TCWCs are having a meeting next month, which means we will have a lot of BT coming out and hints to why thing have occured (eg: Why TCWC Wellington upgraded CY Gene to a cat 3 after it left the tropics). Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good link. We should put it on the seasons page. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - ill start working on something later since i have loads of links to SHEM BT.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are all the links to RA meeting summaries broken again? :( Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as i can tell. Jason Rees (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, as this storm has hit category 5, it needs to be added to the topic. You have 3 months from the date of the article's creation, or until 18 January, to add the article to the topic with a fully completed PR, and 3 months from the date of dissipation (which I realise will only be a couple of days later :P) to have the article at GA. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton just posted on my wall, "Hey, thanks for the notification. However, I'd like to ask for an exception to the three-month rule, since it will be impossible to make a complete and accurate article until the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out (likely 5 or 6 months from now). Thoughts?" (I assume he's just talking about the GA, not the PR) This would be fine by me, the retention process is just a semi-formal approach to keep tabs on things, with most particular retentions being non-controversial but occasionally they are built or changed based on discussions such as this one leading to consensus. In this case, I'd be happy to see the second retention put back, I guess that would be to 3 months after the Tropical Cyclone Report is released. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

...Well I'll preliminarily set it to be longer anyway - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, that'd be fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for formaility - Hurricane Ricks TCR was released December 11 which means we have until March 11 2010 to get rick upto scratch and into the FTs.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Euston - We have a major problem - the JTWC have finally implemented their portal thingy which they have been threatening to do all year. Thus all of the ATCRS and links to the besttracks will have gone dead. However they are still on the JTWCs website and are located here. Jason Rees (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a bot problem. Did they change only the URL or did they change the naming of the files as well? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jason Rees and I have been discussing a proposal in the IRC. Its about reviewing the project every December and July where most editors are active and !voting about things which need to be changed such as project processes and style of articles, etc. To me, long and dramatic discussion might be avoided by doing biannually.Also, in addition, 2 users will be elected to oversee this process and make special polls when urgent change is needed. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Too bureaucratic and really unnecessary. The project is running smoothly pretty well. (IRC is not a great place for consensus either). Anyway, we don't need this process as there is really nothing wrong and oppose any changes in the foreseeable future.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a heads-up that there is a typhoon named Mirinae (local name Santi) currently headed toward the Phillipines and set to smack right into the middle of Luzon in a day or so. It looks like it has the potential to create a rainfall disaster on the scale of Ketsana if not worse, so it might be worth setting up the basic structure of an article pretty soon. (Google News shows a bunch of stories about ongoing disaster preparations.) Looie496 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We are aware of Mirinae, we just have to wait until there is some decent impact before we write articles.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The loss of Juliancolton from wikipedia concerns me, though it doesn't surprise me. Wikipedia can become a frustrating place over the years, project matters aside, which is why some of us have been lessening our work load on here. I moved him to inactive, for now. I guess the big question becomes, "Can this project survive?" In order for it to survive, we need to be inclusive concerning new editors and review more GAN/FAC articles to prevent backlogs from forming on the GAN/FAC pages. I've been more active in updating a couple of the many templates used to simply track status within the project, like the Noticeboard. This past month, the GAN backlog has been reducing, because Cyclonebiskit and myself have been reviewing more articles. Jason has also helped out earlier in the year. But we need more than 3 people available to review GANs for the project. I'm concerned that the project seems to be dying off slowly as more established editors leave, the way the meteorology project did a few years ago. If that happens, we'll be lucky to get GAN candidates reviewed within 3 months, which will further erode significant editing/improvements within the project. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not our fault unfortunately. Its the drama and crap that goes on in Wikipedia itself. We have problems, I know that well enough. Attract more editors? Best suggestion I can give.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How would we go about doing that within wikipedia? Monitor the articles, and send new editors a welcome message? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here I think sits the problem. We have several editors who have no idea how to contribute properly and drama breaks out so commonly, especially among the West Pacific. If we could teach editors to contribute properly, we might actually have something moving. I also think we need to contact the inactive project editors and see if they can start up again.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a wikipedia page on how to constructively edit...I just can't remember what the wikilink is. We could post a link to the page to people how are perceived to contribute in a non-productive manner. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a welcoming/inviting with links to important WP pages (Sandbox, the rules, etc), and important WPTC pages (Guidelines, etc.) to properly guide these editors the proper direction. Also, maybe send a message to all inactive and active members either to help the project by staying or by becoming active again. Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any bot that can pass out notices to members/inactive members? Darren23^Edits|Mail 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no experience using bots. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Turns out I'm still editing...) I can start up JCbot (talk · contribs) to send out messages if needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mitch, I'm personally thrilled there's attention being paid to the southern oceans and western Pacific. Drama is a small price to pay for progress. I don't think it was more than two years ago when the western and southern oceans were basically ignored. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally find the information included within the Tropical Storm Grace (2009) article quite interesting, even if it is potentially awkward/embarassing to NHC. It might be worth adding similar information into other tropical cyclone-related articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As part of the wind/pressure series of articles I've been in the process of upgrading in 2009, both Air mass and trade wind are currently up for GAN. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Tornado is in FARC, so eyes are also needed there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Fifi/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bret (1999)/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1941 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't that information used to be placed on the noticeboard? Thegreatdr (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure it's well-utilized or kept up to date. This way the current nominations are displayed a bit more prominently for all to see. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've been trying to update the noticeboard a couple times a week the last several weeks, but I'm uncertain if others have or not. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I usually look at the noticeboard first to see what is going on. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Gwenda/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Rick (2009)/archive1

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that all the Cyclones outside the NHC AOR should be based on the RSMC Category not the JTWC Category, since the JTWC is tottally unoffical even though they named the systems in WPAC from 1945-2000. As i didnt think this was going to be controversial so i went ahead and changed most articles to reflect the RSMC intensity. However both Cyclonebiskit and JC hate it as apparently most people who read en-wiki will only know the SSHS which in my mind is bullshit as if you look most people do take their information from their NMHSS which in turn either do their own forecasting or take their information from a RSMC or TCWC.

Also under the old system pages were being overcategorised - taking a Cat 5 SPAC Cyclone as an example. It used to go into Cat 3 Cyclones and SPAC cyclones. Where as under the new system they just go into Cat5 SPAC cyclones and Cat 5 SPAC Cyclones goes into SPAC Cyclones which saves us having an over categorisation.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you, for all areas except NIO. The IMD has online data 1990-2008. What would happen there for storms pre=1990? --Priyanka 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a category called Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones, which the NIO Cyclones that have articles pre 1990 would go into unless we could find something that gave us the intensity such as the Monthly weather reviews and besides its only Tip and Bohla from memory that have articles.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean Gay and Bhola right? Also shouldn't it be Tropical Cyclones with Unknown Strength --Priyanka 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep they are the ones i meant. :P - Yep to the title change but then again i created one before i saw that one exisisted at Category:Unknown Intensity which is currently undergoing a CFD here.

You have to make these discussions BEFORE making major changes that affect hundreds of articles. You're new categories, albeit made with good intention, make the system more confusing as the articles will now be too specifically categorized. The original categories were perfectly fine for their uses, there was no need for change. This whole stunt is pushing the limits of your point of view on wiki as this is all based on what you think, not what is known. If you're basing your assumption that most people get their information from their NMHSS is based off what you see on wikipedia and the comparatively few people who know what their talking about and comment on talk pages. Also, the SSHS is not useless in other basins, it's what makes it easy for everyone to match up storms across the world. Using the RSMC scales separates all the basins into their own groups, preventing that easy linking. I urge you to revert all your edits concerning this stunt until this quarrel is resolved. Also, please refrain from cursing, it's very rude and offensive to some people.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The SSHS may well be usefull for matching up cyclones around the world but its unoffical - why should we use unoffical information to categorise cyclones as it leads to an overlink. Also there was a need for a change as we had a major over link going on with cyclone being placed in BASINCYCLONE/SSHS CATEGORY, which is stupid and a pointless overlink where as under this system that i have implemented and wont be reverting until more people comment on here doesnt lead to an overlink and makes much more sense and leads to the category pages being better organised. Also i didnt curse as "Bullshit" isnt a swearword where i come from.Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fairly certain "bullshit" is a rude word in all English speaking regions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after reading all of that, all I can think of is: So? You yourself concede that the previous system is useful by allowing for easy comparison of storms, even across the idiocy that the hodgepodge of intensity classifications causes. That to me seems like a good thing, since it maximizes usefulness for the reader. BTW, "bullshit" is also a curse word from where I'm from.Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a good thing when it is leading to pages being over categorised. Which the previous system was doing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How was it overcategorization? There's a difference between specific categories and excessive categories... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking an SPAC Cyclone for example it was going into C3 Cyclones and SPAC Cyclones where as under the new system it is only going into SPAC C3 Cyclones which is linked back to SPAC Cyclones. Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which strikes me as a very marginal improvement, as the categories already exist, but are now in a tree structure. Not only that, but it makes it harder to compare storms across basins. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that quite several Wikipedia-Books are hurricanes related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP:TC people can oversee books much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for/against this? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Book-Class Tropical cyclone articles, done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. If anyone has questions, just let me know.

BTW Julian that book you showed me was fine. The rule of thumb is that books have double the pages of the PDF, so it's a good idea to keep the PDF under 350 pages. Over that, chances are the printed books will be split in two. If you can live with that, then length isn't really important. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Hurricane Floyd 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tropical cyclone tracks is in a complete mess at the moment, which makes maintenance (on Commons) and actual usage of the files harder as a result. I've got a couple specific concerns I'd like to try and address - obviously want WPTC's input.

1. File naming. The system used has a couple flaws:
   1. The nature of the file-names is substandard. Non-cryptic filenames are preferred and names like File:1-S 2001 track.png and File:Katrina 2005 track.png are both pretty obscure. A reference to the fact they something to do with tropical cyclones would be nice!
   2. The inconsistent format makes identification of missing tracks harder. Not a big deal with the recent stuff, but a major one going further back.
2. Categorisation. There's thousands of files, but only one category. Subcategories would be handy.
3. File descriptions. Most of the files still have outdated descriptions (over 4000 are marked as needing updating.

The last two are fairly straightforward to fix. For example, by-basin subcategories are probably sufficient for now. The real problem is the naming. I'd like a consistent layout for both named and unnamed storms, with the storm name/number occurring in the same place in the file name. Its also Atlantic-centric at present as "Tropical Storm 1 track.png" will always be an Atlantic storm.

My suggestion would be something like "<year> <basin> tropical cyclone <name/number> track.png", possibly altering "tropical cyclone" to the appropriate specific type. For the two examples, I give the new names would something like 2001 Southern hemisphere (or Australian maybe?) tropical storm 1 track.png and 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Katrina track.png. The main advantage of this layout (with year and basin first) is that it allows identification of missing files more readily than having the year at the end. There's also a complication with the unofficially named storms (such as File:1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane track.png), I'd suggest moving it to the storm number (in this case 6) and leaving the description to provide the name.

There are two complications to any mass-rename. First is the technical aspect of actually moving the files (requires a Commons admin such as myself). The other is its no use renaming the files if the tracks program churns out files with a different syntax, storms.pl would need updating. I want to make some changes to the file names as I'm pretty sure the current content has both redundant and duplicate files - due to re-analysis and inconsistent naming respectively. It would also make a potential future mass upload easier. Comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with most of that, and I'd be able to help with file renaming and categorization. On the topic, what do we do with single-point track maps like this? Are they useful at all? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Same here. But take in mind one general issue at Commons: File names tend to get longer and longer. Actually with the AJAX extension as well with the fact, that only the beginning of a file name is shown in the gallery and then an ellipse, so significant naming information has to be rather in the beginning of a file than in the end. (What I mean is, that a file name like File:South-west Indian cyclone season 2007–2008 severe tropical storm Antoine.jpg won't be the best solution since you will only see something like South-west Indian cyclone season 20... --Matthiasb (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's why I suggested year, basin, storm name as the order. The year (not season - limitation of the program) is more significant information than the storm name as the set of storms in the year 2005 means something, whilst the set of storms numbered 12 doesn't. At present, I cannot easily use the category to identify storms from 1947 with tracks on Commons (and so work out if any are missing for potential uploads). With consistent year-first naming I can do that, but I cannot easily do so with name-first naming even if it is consistent. Possible simplifications include using the abbreviations for the cardinal directions and using "tropical cyclone", or just "cyclone", for all storms instead of the full RSMC name. Could then simplify your example down to: "2007 SW Indian cyclone Antoine track.png". Reversing the basin/name order would also help with problem you mention "2007 Antoine SW Indian cyclone". I do want named and unnamed storms to have the same syntax, question is is "2005 10L Atlantic cyclone" ok? If so, I'm happy to work with that.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Julian on the single points maps: I think they are better than nothing, as they at least (sort of) provide visual context to the storm's location, and if we removed them the season pages would look unbalanced (why do only 5 of the 6 storms have images?).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Actually that's what also the NHC does with that impressive PDF in which they provide tracks for all atlantic hurricanes since anno dubak, some of them have no track but are marked only as a single dot.

Both of "2007 SW Indian cyclone Antoine track.png" or "2007 Antoine SW Indian cyclone" seem good (I would prefer the latter, however). With your example "2005 10L Atlantic cyclone" I also have no problem however I have a problem which I alread addressed here before, when the article Unnamed Subtropical Storm (xxx) (dont remember the year) was moved to xxx Newfoundland Subtropical Storm. I consider such descriptive namings as original research unless those names are proven. None will contest Labor Day Hurricane or some other (in)famous events but most of the unnamed storms (whether only numbered in earlier years or because of recognizzation in post season analysis only) do not have names, even no descriptive names (especially in the case, when a storm did recognised in post season analysis: then there mostly wasn't any coverage in the press, so only RSMC and related data sources are available). However my concernings weren't shared by the majority in this project and since I am an international observer only ;-) I preferred not to troll on the issue ;-).

With the track maps however there is also another effect, the alphabetical sorting, so such selfmade names won't be ordered in approximately chronological order within one season. Otherwise at least in those basins which use the ABC concept the storms name does put them in order though the problem with unnamed systems (tropical depressions) remains. Maybe "2008 01L Arthur cyclone track map" (for a TD: "2008 01L cyclone track map") would be the best solution. (Though maybe some might claim that in the Atlantic are no cyclones but hurricanes and that TDs are no cyclones or whatsoever.) --Matthiasb (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this be renamed WP:Books/1941 Atlantic hurricane season? It's the only one named differently than "YYYY Atlantic/Pacific hurricane season", so I'm wondering if it's meant to be different, or just incomplete. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In other news, the number of FA's and GA's under the WikiProject's belt finally exceeds the number of Start-Class articles we have.^[1] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The NHC have just confirmed that they are going to add on 12 hours to the lead time of hurricane watches/warnings. This follows the example set by NWS GUAM and the CPHC which increased last year. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100105_nhc.html Jason Rees (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the departure of a few crucial project members, I've noticed that the collective quality of our articles has somewhat declined over recent months. Many new articles, regardless of their actual quality, are simply assessed as C-Class and left to stagnate. While I used to be against merging or redirecting stubs, I think we need to go through Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone storm articles, Category:Start-Class Tropical cyclone storm articles, and Category:C-Class Tropical cyclone storm articles to decide which articles should be kept, and which would be better off as part of a broader article. For example, Tropical Storm Edouard (1990) is rather short, and, no disrespect intended to the original author, it could be condensed and merged the 1990 season page; we then have one less article requiring cleanup to deal with. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(trawling thru this page) i hope i'm not a part of this problem! well, with eduoard at least... what exactly is wrong with that? sure, its a little on the short side, but so are a lot of articles. and the writing can be fixed. whats the long term plan? in 20 years, would/should there be an article on edouard? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its an old argument about fishspinners. Do they deserve articles or not bearing in mind theres season articles which could contain the information? Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i guess this is the right place for this. i'm lookin at a featured (or good) topic for offseason atlantic hurricanes, but noone can help me. its based off List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, and theres articles for every named storm in that list. the featured topic crit says "All articles in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category." does that count using that article? the category (Category:Off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones) includes alot more articles than what are in the list article. can anyone help me please?! --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone else around here to help me? i'm still not sure about this issue. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks ok but you will need to revamp that list and get it up to FLC, before you can go for an FT or GT.Jason Rees (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

but i cant get to the list yet since i'm not sure what should be there. the category includes depressions and stuff. should the list article have them too?? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it should include every depression that is included in HURDAT and that was before the season started. Maybe for the sections May June and December it should use tables instead of prose.Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to address this, either by delisting its GA or taking over where Hurricanehink left off in April. Which does the project prefer? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we downgrade it since by Cyclonebiskits own admission (On IRC) it leaves out a lot of vital stuff such as impact.Jason Rees (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was flicking through one of the reports (page5) of the WMO/ESCAP typhoon committee earlier (which meets during next week). I noticed that Japan uses the typhoon committee scale (ie TD TS STS TY) and then its own scale goes on to use "Very Strong TY" and "Violent TY". So i was wondering could we use these in the WPAC to solve various problems like the timelines?Jason Rees (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

not sure if this has been addressed, but it sounds like a good idea. if you cant use the saffir-simpson scale there, you might as well go with whatever you got. are there any downsides to it? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give me a key to the codes and what they mean? I figured out IDQP's are cyclone advices, and ABPW10's are summaries of what is going on in western and south pacific. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, where can I find all of them? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from 09-10 Aus. The codes are the WMO header that the advisory is issued under, and makes them traceable and archivable on sites like NOAA and Wx Trop. As for a key yure best bet would be to look at the Operational plans issued by the WMO.Jason Rees (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I am correcting and trying to improve many of the stubs on Haiti geopgraphical features created in the wake of the Haitiy earthquake in the German Wikipedia so also the article on Les Cayes. So I came on this topic. I wonder, if it was that storm which destroyed most of that town on August 12, 1831. Maybe you could improve 1831 Atlantic hurricane season#Great Barbados Hurricane using some of the informations provided in that link (German) claiming that whole street were destroyed by an three hours lasting Orkan (note that the the word Orkan in the German language denotes any storm of BF 11, the word Hurrikan as a translation for hurricane is rather new, maybe since the 1960s, while the expression Hurricane was formerly actually used for a mainly forrested area which was destroyed by was nowadays is called a tornado; the expression was introduced AFAIK by Friedrich Gerstäcker and Balduin Möllhausen which both extensively travelled in the US in the mid of 19th century).. the results were described as that most roofs were torn down, many houses destroyed an alsmost 2000 people have died. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this is coming up again, but the largest Atlantic hurricane template is seeing a lot of editing/reverting activity concerning Ike's size, which is just outside the top 10 when using gale wind diameter. NCDC made a statement on their web page which is causing the confusion. We need to stay vigilant on this, since the already existing references support a diameter closer to 400 miles, not 900. I've e-mailed NCDC, and sent a copy of the e-mail to NHC, concerning this issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that at this point the best solution is to simply depreciate and delete that template. It's almost impossible to maintain and verify, and is largely based on original research. IIRC, there was already a TFD for it though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the extended best track, produced by NHC and maintained by CIRA, original research? The template is referenced. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NCDC sent me an e-mail mentioning they'd be taking down all references to Ike's size within their web pages over the coming days. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

isn't that sort of a problem, that we didn't clear this up until almost a year and a half after the storm? shouldn't we do something better in the future? idk, when we make templates like that, make sure that one source confirms the entire list. maybe when a record is set or something like that, we could say "Preliminary, it appears that Hurricane X set Y record", at least till nhc explicitly confirms it? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Uploaded a new version of the file. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who handles the track maps, but I had a little query for an article I'm working on. The track appears to end just off the coat, which is how it appears in Unisys [8] as well, but the TCR [9] has it moving inland. Is there any way to add that last data point to the track, so the map has it going inland? Thx ---Viennaiswaiting (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would do this for you but a few weeks ago my hard drive broke and I had to get a new one, thus I lost all my information, including the track generator. I'm trying to get it back up and running now but in the meantime, you can ask Keith Edkins (talk · contribs) to do this for you. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you kindly :) --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the NHC ever put the naming lists up again for six years in the future in early January like they have done this season. It doesnt mean that theres NOT GONNA BE ANY RETIREMENTS OF NAMES AT THE WMO Meeting. I say this as in 2004 the NHC placed up the lists for 2009 and included Fabian and Isabel, which were later retired by the WMO.[10]Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a warning i have just updated the Inflation template so values in the infobox will be out of whack with those in articles unless Template:Inflation is used.Jason Rees (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am curious of about joining this project about tropical cyclones, and as a Filipino living in a typhoon zone, I'd like to contribute about typhoons in our basin. Typhoon activity is so high there, that the strongest storm Typhoon Tip formed in the basin and its rainbands affected the Philippines in 1979. --Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Join it if you want, though you dont have to. Also feel free to come and help us out on 2010 PTS when the time comes for it to kick off.Jason Rees (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

After some prodding through a talk page comment, the Allen article has been substantially improved through reformatting of references and the addition of a preparations section. Once five fact tags can be replaced with refs, and the lead expanded to some degree, it can be GANed. As a project, we really need to improve articles for storms such as Allen to GA class due to their high importance to the TC project. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I remind reviewers and editors of tropical cyclone articles that there are numerous errors relating to the Longshore reference. I have volunteered to help in its editing, and I'm up to 65 individual errors within the first 230 pages of the book after an initial skimming (though to be fair about one-third are metric/imperial unit conversion errors). And these are the ones that were obvious to me. A more thorough search/fact check would likely find more errors. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I got this book as a Christmas gift last year and was surprised at the obvious errors it contains. It's a good read, but requires fact-checking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you know any errors off the top of your head, let me know on my talk page. It's better to include all the known errors to David at once from one person rather than piecemeal from many people. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The most glaring inaccuracy that I can remember off the top of my head was on page 74, which claims a hurricane in September 1941 made landfall in North Carolina and ultimately struck Ontario. I'm not sure if the year is wrong, or if it's just completely wrong information. Either way, I'm sure you've seen this already. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't...that's a good catch. Because of the rainfall project, my familiarity with systems goes back a little over 50 years, but not back to 1941 except in Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is he director of the NHC or the TPC or both? The article is confusing/contradicting in this point. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just the NHC. The TPC doesnt exist anymore - it was renamed the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh contraire. TPC still exists. He's the boss of TPC. Look at the bottom of the NHC web page...TPC is still listed. All that's happenned so far is a proposal to eliminate the TPC name from their national center. Also, within the NWS, their internal chat room names remain TPC. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm odd as this says "Also under Read's leadership, the name "Tropical Prediction Center" or TPC (which never quite caught on) was retired and the far more widely known and accepted name "National Hurricane Center" or NHC returned to the office." and im sure ive seen other things saying that its NHC as opposed to TPC these days.Jason Rees (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The name TPC caught on fine within the National Weather Service. It's certainly less of a mouthful that "Hydrosupercalifragilistcexpialadocious Center"...um, I mean Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, which is more clumsy to say or spell than National Meteorological Center was. In any event, hurricane specialists back in the day when I worked at Miami and Lake Charles didn't particularly care for the TPC name, even though TPC has more forecasters for general tropical weather forecasting than hurricane forecasting. They'd complain about it on occasion on the hurricane hotline calls for tropical cyclones, which is an odd place to vent. The main NCEP site still lists TPC as one of the National Centers of Environmental Prediction. If both the main NCEP site and NHC website recognize TPC's existence, the renaming hasn't taken effect yet. When the Marine Prediction Center was renamed the Ocean Prediction Center several years ago, it was amazing how efficient and quick the name change took place within the MPC/OPC and NCEP sites. I just posted a question to one of the hurricane specialists about this on facebook. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I bear news from facebook. The name change has not occurred yet, and it could be a while before it actually happens. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cue towel throwing into the ring - Thanks David for double checking with one of the member of the HSU.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could color the black and white NRL images to make them similar to the images found on the MODIS rapid response system web page. I've made a comparison image. Please leave comment on ways to improve the image, or if you disagree with the change. Supportstorm (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure we are allowed to. But Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) knows more about images than i do.Jason Rees (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing! The version you edited looks strikingly like one of the flattened, colored versions. I believe it should be perfectly acceptable to do as the images are public domain so there aren't any restrictions to what we do. If you can color them, feel free to do so. It adds an amazing touch. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I still have a few bugs to work out but nothing to difficult to handle with. Supportstorm (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Hurricane Katrina 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. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We now have all NHEM BT for 2009 bar the IMD who are yet to report. All season articles have been updated with the BT but several of the Storm articles havent. If anyone can provide any assistance please do so. ThanksJason Rees (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Masters is currently reporting that there is a South Atlantic Tropical Disturbance of the cost of brazil. Eyes are requested to be kept on South Atlantic Tropical Cyclone as this system can not go in to the article quite yet.Jason Rees (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless a non-blogged source confirms it, it shouldn't go on the page at all. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After going through a long stretch of having less than 10 articles on GAR at any one time for the met project, we blossomed into the teens within the past couple weeks (with 10 part of this project), with minimal reviews being carried out over that time. I've reviewed 3 articles since my last article on GAR was reviewed in mid-February, so I'm doing my part here, but I can't do this all by myself. We need some experienced editors familiar with reviewing GAs to clear out some of the queue before any more GAR requests are added to the list. Hurricane Fifi is in need of a non-regular reviewer since Julian, myself, and Cyclonebiskit aren't able to review it since we've previously contributed a bit to the article. Any help would be appreciated. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ill take a look over these ones over the next few days:

Hurricane Fifi, Tropical Storm Claudette (2009), Hurricane Allen, Hurricane Alma (1970). I can not review Low Pressure Area or Cyclone Vaianu (2006) 1990 Andhra Pradesh cyclone though as i did some work on two and passed the other one. Jason Rees (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have, admittedly arbitrarily, reassessed this article as A-Class; an explanation can be found at the article's discussion page. Since A-Class is quite underused, I'm wondering if this should be our standing for promoting new articles. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As author of the article, I might be biased in this case, but overall I agree we should use A-class more. Perhaps GA should be a requirement before an article is A-class, but if the article is all-around well-written, has something special about it (isn't generic), has non-breaking spaces, maybe alt-text, and most importantly is as comprehensive as it can be, then it should be A-class. The last note is important, as some articles can be GA's while missing some info (retired storms like Hurricane Frances come to mind). IMO, there should not be a vote/significant discussion, as the less bureaucracy the better - no offense bureaucrats ;) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm why doesn't this cyclone (arguably one of the most powerful ever) lack an article? Shouldn't being a powerful cyclone already be a basis for notability? 121.96.131.167 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I have translated Hurricane Easy (1951) to catalan wikipedia, I have seen a mistake. It say: "On September 15, it attained Category 3 status with 115 mph (185 km/h) sustained winds, and it intensified to its maximum intensity of 160 mph (260 km/h) on September 7. " when hurricane Easy dissipated September 13. I think that, the writer can write "On Septembre 5", but I kwow us that solve it.--KRLS (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for translating it! Fixed now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I translated Tropical Storm Marco (2008), I found a mistake too, but anyone say nothing (Talk:Tropical Storm Marco (2008)).--KRLS (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there's another problem: it seems that www.thehurricanearchive.com doesn't work anymore; all links redirect to http://www.newspaperarchive.com/default.aspx/PdfViewer.aspx --Matthiasb (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they took the hurricane archive down. My only advice would be to remove the dead links and leave ((cite news))-type citations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That section of the town's article consists pretty much of 'canes affecting the town but they're generally unsourced. I will try to add some sources I find but if one would have some sources in mind please add them. Thx. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a good link by David Roth, HPC, which covers most of the history of Louisiana (up to 1997). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

During my continued research on Pacific typhoons in Japan between 2000-2009, I have discovered that Typhoon Chataan in 2002 caused a record shattering 2.7 trillion yen in damage ($29.8 billion US dollars). This amount is higher than any storm in the basin and even higher than the total damage for entire seasons. Continued research may find more damaging storms over the coming days; however, this extreme amount (determined by the Japanese disaster agencies) is the highest of any storm outside the Atlantic basin. It also approaches the damage scale of Hurricane Ike in 2008, ranking it as one of the costliest tropical cyclones ever. Any editors who have time to contribute to this article please do. As a personal and project goal, I would like to get Typhoon Chataan (or Chata'an) to featured status ASAP. For quick acess to Japanese damage reports, this link is to the disaster page for the typhoon on Digital Typhoon. To view the actual reports in an understandable way, use Google Translate and copy the URL to translate an entire report. Hopefully we can get this rolling immediately and get this stub to FA. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd need another, more reliable source to back up this claim. Digital Typhoon is a bit unfamiliar and unrecognized. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Official Site. Digital typhoon is maintained by the National Institute of Informatics in Japan. National Institute of Informatics Wiki-page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need a more reliable source than Digital Typhoon to make such a claim. I did a Google search, and there is nothing on Chataan causing that much damage in Japan. CNN says damage was minimal in Japan. Also, in that link, I don't see anywhere how it could add up to 2.7 trillion yen. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll finish the list I started on the talk page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First, can you find some sort of English source, or another one not from DT, that affirms such a large damage total? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What does the FDMA say? - Theyre the offical NDCC for Japan afaik.Jason Rees (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The key difference between the severe losses from Chata'an and other storms is that more than half of the damage from the storm is attributed to forest damage and much of the rest is from agricultural losses. The most damage was in Iwate Prefecture with just over 1 trillion yen in forest damage and nearly 700 billion yen in agricultural losses (Source). in In Miyagi Prefecture, just over 700 billion yen was recorded in agricultural losses (Source). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had much luck in working together on individual storm articles, I'm sorry to say, despite some attempts over the years. The tropical cyclone coordination to improve the article to FA was likely our finest hour as a project. While the Hurricane Camille coordination last year bore some fruit, it still needs work to attempt GA passage, mainly referencing issues. Other "important" articles (always in the eye of the beholder), such as Hurricane Ike, also need a bit of work. People correctly point out that starting a new article from scratch and improving it yourself is the easiest road to GA, but this doesn't fit wikipedia MoS policy for articles already in existence. It might be best to ask a few people individually if they're willing to help, rather than a general project plea for help. It might work out better. Let us know how the efforts unfold. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Another editor on IRC pointed out that the TC project is underrepresented on the Main Page's Selected anniversaries. It looks like only about a dozen entries have been included, at first glance. Since anybody can add more SA entries, does anybody have any suggestions? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you want all the top, or all the high importance articles to be represented? I can think of about a half dozen off the top of my head, but they're likely represented. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the rules say that article quality is most important, and to be frank, even small natural disasters are more "important" than a lot of the stuff on there ar the moment which are often unsourced start-class articles. And SA is self-serve. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fengshen Parma, Morakot, and Ketsana, would be good candidates from the WPAC but their no where near up to scratch. Though Typhoon Tip might be a good one. In fact several of the JMA Retirees would be good as the standard for retirement is a lot higher than the Atlantic Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we know how many TC anniversaries we have up there? Just looking at today's, the ones that are up there are pretty important - purchase of Alaska, change in government in China, drug treaty, big event in Vietnam War, and assassination attempt of a U.S. president. While it's somewhat U.S.-centered, they're also pretty important. I would think the ones we include would have to be major worldwide events, in which case tropical cyclones actually change the history of the world significantly.

Examples: Katrina making landfall (costliest hurricane ever), Tip's lowest pressure, the Bhola cyclone (caused a civil war, deadliest worldwide), Tracy (costliest Australian cyclone), the Galveston hurricane (deadliest US). I'd imagine those ones are already up there, though.

Somewhat lesser important ones that should be up there are Andrew (2nd costliest Atlantic), 1780 Great hurricane (deadliest Atlantic), Mitch (2nd deadliest Atlantic, deadliest Atlantic in 3 centuries), Nargis (worst Myanmar/Burmese disaster, among the deadliest worldwide), Nina 75 (date when it caused the dam disaster which killed 150,000), 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, Tropical Storm Thelma 91 (deadliest Philippine storm), Vera 59 (costliest/deadliest Japan typhoon), John 94 (longest lasting hurricane).

Some maybe ones: Linda 97 (deadliest Vietnam storm), 1959 Mexico hurricane (deadliest EPAC hurricane - was it the deadliest Mexico hurricane in general?), Leon-Eline (one of the deadliest SWIO cyclones), Catarina, Iniki (costliest Hawaiian hurricane), Jeanne 04 (one of the deadliest Haiti cyclones), 1938 New England hurricane (historic US hurricane), 1928 and 1926 Florida hurricanes (both historic). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Article quality also offsets importance, moreso according to the rules, and in many days, not much of importance happens and the articles are also poor Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/March_26 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As i said before Typhoon Tip would be a good article to shove up on their as its at "FA" and is it is one of the most important cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To YellowMonkey, most of the ones I listed are already in good shape. The only ones that aren't are Nina, Thelma 91, Vera 59, Leon-Eline, and possibly Jeanne, 1938 NE, and 1926/8 Florida hurricanes. I think importance is, well, more important for selected articles. After all, many people complain of there being too many tropical cyclones across Wikipedia (too many TC TFA's and FA's, to be specific). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne shouldn't be too far from GA status. I did some improvement months ago, but have thus far lacked motivation to finish the work. I've been generally concentrating on the met articles, which tend to be supporting articles to those in this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, If you haven't found out yet, webcite is back up and all the archived pages work again! --Dil Hoom Hoom Kare 15:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the ((saved book)) template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Tropical cyclone articles should have covers.

If you need help with the ((saved book)) template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me, since a few older FAs require updating or overhauling. If everybody could pick an FA and decide whether or not it needs attention, that would be great. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This has become a minor issue lately as to whether there were 17, 18, or 19 TDs in 1984. If you use NHC's non-development database, you could come up with 20, though one was clearly an extratropical cyclone on NMC surface weather maps when it was near Florida, which is why 20 isn't viable. The system in their non-developmental database in early August northeast of Bermuda was well out at sea and at the limb of Meteosat imagery in the cold sector of the main polar front (it nearly appears frontal itself on a couple images though from that angle it's questionable). Another question is whether we are to follow current guidelines (where subtropical and tropical depression numbers are counted together) or 1984 guidelines, where subtropical storms/depressions were on a different numbering system? Curious what you all think, because I'm not clear.

Also, the ACE statistics for each storm are being attacked for their non-referenceableness (if that is a word). If there is no way to resolve the reference issue, I'll have to remove it. If you have any opinion against that, include it in the 1984 Atlantic hurricane season GA review. This GA review is of particular importance, because it will form the template with how we deal with tropical depressions in the 1981-1987 seasons, the years without Atlantic tropical weather system articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always been for removing ACE, due to their non-referenceableness (let's make it a word). If I were to do it on my own, I would use the Klaus prelim report, which says it was TD 15. Lili would make that 16, and then would the SS make it 17? We know Fran was TD 10, which still makes Klaus 15 since the intermediary TD's all strengthened to TS status. That fits in perfectly with the season article, so I'd guess the subtropical storm was either not classified operationally, or it had a different numbering system. Either way, I would say 17, per Klaus definitely being 15, plus Lili and the SS. But then, there was the post-season upgraded TD, which would bring it to 18. Right? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is true. However, if we trust that every system in their non-development database was a TD, we'd be at 20. However, personal communication with people at NHC indicates not all of those systems would be considered TDs nowadays. We could be inserting opinion and a certain POV/OR into that article no matter what number we agree upon. I knew this would end up being an issue, since TPC has historically paid little attention to maintaining a tropical depression climatology. This could change once the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis is through the current day, but that could take another decade (or two) at the pace they've established over the past decade of their involvement in this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could ignore the non-development database, since it's not that publicly known, and then we'd still have 18 (since HPC has the post-season TD). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep 18 then. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Today I wrote a short stub article on Scorpion Reef a small reef and island chain located in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. I actually stumbled across the Hurricane Henri (1979) while looking around for a TC article in need of improvement, as I was scrolling down the 1979 list my eye caught the attention of Henri's track which went right over the island chain whos article I had just created. And I was even more surprised to find out, that the NHC and every single source out there claims that it made no landfalls or even affected any land in the Gulf of Mexico. Im not trying to look like a nut job doing WP:OR, but it truly looks like Henri impacted Scorpion Reef (Which is inhabited by the way) in some way shape or form. I read a week ago in signpost, about Wikipedia had corrected an age old error about the Rhine River and this anomaly I have stumbled upon might be another. So given all your expertise on Tropical Cyclones, I was wondering if you could point me toward the best track map or list of coordinates that Henri went over so I can use that to determine if it indeed landfalled, or made a direct hit on Scorpion reef. Cheers -Marcusmax(speak) 02:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Heres the Template:Hurdat data for the system (see edit screen).Jason Rees (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, Thank you so much Jason! The storm passed directly over Scorpion reef on 09/16/1979, coordinates 22.5 N, -89.7W, see [11] in order to view it for yourselves. Is this data enough to mean anything at this point. This could be a major anomaly that sources have been reporting for years, but using scientific data from the NHC we may have just determined that Henri either landfalled, or made a direct hit on the islands.-Marcusmax(speak) 02:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe since it was a tropical depression when it passed over that latitude/longitude pair, it is not considered as a landfall in HURDAT? I'll look up other storms which struck land as TD's and see if there is an XING=1 in those storms. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Two of the three random systems I have checked (Not Marco 1990, but Gordon 1994 and Bertha 2002) do not list crossings if the system is down to TD strength. I checked the old reference for HURDAT, and it doesn't specify whether or not TD crossings of the coast count or not. I'll either send an e-mail and chat with them in person over the next month. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, if you do figure it out message me. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To create books, simply click on the "Create a book" link, which can be found in the "print/export" toolbox on the left of your screen. See Help:Books if you need help, or just drop me a line if you are still confused/unsure of yourself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you think of a good way to create drafts of hurricane books, they could be mass-created by bots. This way, most of the job is done by bots, and only spit-shining is left. See a similar request but for chemical elements (description). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ive moved the table to a subpage as otherwise things will get far too crowded on here with tables for all 7 basins.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you manually update your list of FA, DYKs, etc... You could use JL-BOT to save you the trouble you know... See ((User:JL-Bot/Project content)). It's quite handy and very customizable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a conversion for inches of Mercury in the mini infobox used in most of the season articles? I got that comment in an FLC I'm working on. On one hand, it's good to have both metric and imperial units whenever possible, although I seem to recall avoiding the inHg because it made the template too big, as well as inHg not being used much anymore. Thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think the general public (at least in the US) is more familiar with inches of mercury than millibars or hectopascals. From that perspective, I could see the added value of having infoboxes using inches of mercury, if feasible. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Their in all of the infoboxes bar the Info-box Hurricane Small - I tried to add it in earlier but i couldn't quite get it in tidily.

I agree; inHg is definitely a more commonly used value than mb in my experience. I think it would actually be a very good idea to add this conversion to the infoboxes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. inHg is the measurement I'm most used to, followed by mb. As for hPa, rarely if at all, and man, thinking of Hectopascals takes me back back back back back[/ChrisBerman] - all the way back to the days of the CompuServe The Weather Channel Forum. "Hectopascal, that little rascal..." - The Bushranger (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 JTWC ATCR Has just been released within the last hour or two. The most significant typhoons in the JTWCs eyes this year are Dujuan, Lupit & Parma.Jason Rees (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We have dozens, possibly even hundreds, of citations to various issues of the Monthly Weather Review, but most of them are formatted as webpages rather than journals. (I've only recently discovered how to properly cite the MWR, so I'm also at fault.) Any help in correcting this would be appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will help, judging by a certain persons reaction on IRC the other night this is a major problem.Jason Rees (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. It can be a bit confusing, but here is an example format:

<ref>((cite journal|volume=39|issue=8|authors=W. F. Reed|work=[[Monthly Weather Review]]|publisher=[[American Meteorological Society]]|page=1149–1150|date=August 1911|accessdate=April 29, 2010|title=The Small Hurricane of August 11-12, 1911 at Pensacola, FLA|url=http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/038/mwr-038-08-1296.pdf|format=PDF))</ref>

Volume and issue information can be found at the AMS site, if you scroll down to the journal's respective year (volume) and month (issue). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor squabble: some articles use |page=1149-50 to abbreviate that the page count is still in the 1100's. Whether we do that or not doesn't really matter, as long as we are consistent. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I put Hurricane Dennis up for FARC, because it really doesn't meet the FA criteria anymore. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't have time to improve it. I cannot save every article within the project from being either deleted or delisted as GA or FA. I pick and choose. I recently upgraded Audrey's referencing so it wouldn't so easily suffer GA delisting, and I fixed all the reference problems with Katrina, which took a while. I just don't have the time the rest of this month anyway. We definitely need people within this project willing to save older GAs and FA, whether or not they were the primary editor way back when. It's a big blind spot within this and the met project. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We know DR and we are very grateful for all of your help with the project. We have recently set up a project audit in which some edits are being made to bring FAs up to current standards.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to pick and choose which ones we take the time to improve, and I greatly appreciate the ones you improve. I honestly don't have the time for this one, and I'm not sure a lot of us do, because it needs so much. I just don't think it helps the project with Dennis being considered featured. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not that important of a storm. I would agree that these types of efforts should be saved for historic hurricanes that are memorable. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Dennis was particularly memorable. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The project is back to 1956 now, which was the original intent when these graphics started to be systematically produced in 2002/2003. However, CLIQR has changed that, and I will produce graphics bridging back to 1950. This doesn't leave me many Atlantic tropical cyclones left which impacted the United States. However, more graphics will be produced for Mexico, or for eastern Pacific systems which impacted the West, where progress has been lagging so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there any plans to extend the records for other US Islands? Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean more fully fill out the information for the US's Pacific island group posessions? I could do that, but there isn't going to be enough information for graphics in most, if not all, cases. I think I've already covered the wettest 15 storms for Guam, and the wettest 10 for American Samoa. I believe I have Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands covered back to 1950. If not, let me know. If full record rainfall datasets for Jamaica, Cuba, and Hispaniola are ever obtained, I'll add the information/related storms into the project. I know in the case of Jamaica, they had a fire some years back and lost everything before they had a chance to digitize the records. Their director said it could be many years before their records are restored. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no - i personally dont care about having the images (though their nice to use). Id just like to be able to look up a cyclone i know has affected Samoa or Guam and see the rainfall details but thats your call. Your Rainfall project has also been proven to be a decent springboard to find impact in a country or Island that may not otherwise show up. Jason Rees (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks for the feedback. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazing work, as always. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I plan on nominating that for FAC in the coming weeks. Any help would be appreciated. I feel that recently we haven't had much luck on FAC's, and perhaps some greater collaborations would help. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I nommed it, now that there are no other WPTC FAC's up there. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When I translated that article some time back into the DE:WP I found that several links were gone. Some of them I could recover in the webarchive and/or alternative web sites but I don't remember if I replaced them also in the EN:WP article. Maybe comparing those links might helpful. Good luck. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys

• I have two big announcements regarding Tc's

• The first - RSMC La Reunion

• RSMC La Reunion have recently launched a new website which now stores all their advisories and BT back to 2000. Also more importantly has a section for all of us who speek or understand English as well as a part for the French speekers.

• Link 1 - http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/index.html
• Link 2 - http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/francais/index.html

• The second - The Australians

• The BOM have made up individual summaries of most tropical cyclones that have been in the Australian region since 1970.

• Link 3 - http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/index.shtml#db

Jason Rees (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• These links and descriptions should be on the storm subproject main page. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)