Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Two questions for discussion

First, in the hurricane season templates, there are spaces for first formation, number of storms, etc. In the East Pacific, should those dates and totals include the Central Pacific? For example, if there were 14 East Pacific named storms and 1 Central Pacific named storm, at the end of the season, should put 14 or 15 in the space for number of named storms in the infobox? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

East and central pacific are lumped together into one article/category. Mostly this is because of naming ( ) which leaves no room for distinction. However, they are two separate basins so if you want you could probably have two separate sections in the article for them...with two separate infobox tables...as long as it's consistent among all the season articles either is fine. Incidentally, the same issue applies to the 2004-05 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season which includes at least 2 and possibly 3 basins. Jdorje 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The HURDAT data from NHC and JTWC is separated by basin. It goes NAtlantic, EPac, WPac, NIndian, and South. SIndian is lumped in with SPac, and CPac is lumped in with EPac. See [1]. Jdorje 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, I have taken the unilateral action of restoring year by year links for Pacific hurricane seasons from 1960-1969 because they named all storms from those seasons. Should we lump the 1950-1959 seasons into one big article, or should we have them seperate like (for example) the 1930s in the Atlantic? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how much there is to write about them. If it's too long for one lump article they can be split. I don't think it would hurt to write them as a lump article and then if necessary it can be split later. I held off on making the categories for the older seasons since I wasn't sure if they would stay lumped...but once that's decided the categories can be built. Jdorje 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have 2 questions about the infobox now. Should tropical depressions be included for Dates, damages, and deaths? Say for example TD 1 formed on May 18, caused $500 million in damage, and killed 20, then TS Alberto formed on July 3. Should the TD, if mentioned in the article, be included, or should we only use named storms? Second, should the infobox (and many other areas as well) include storms after they transition to extratropical? For example, the Longest lasting Tropical Cyclones in the Atlantic Basin is completely wrong IMO because it includes the extratropical portion of their lifetime. I am under the impression that for tropical cyclones, when they become extratropical they're done. Hurricanehink 15:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Those are good questions. Unfortunately I don't know what is best or right. I have the same problem when making hurricane tracks however...whether to include the extratropical portions. For instance Hurricane Mitch has an extatropical portion several times larger than its tropical portion, and including it causes the image to be scaled down so you don't see the tropical portion as well. But for some storms like Hurricane Faith, including the extratropical part is the whole point. Jdorje 17:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
If TD1 formed and was destructive, then YES, it should count...as for the extratropical part, my opinion is that the date of dissipation should be just that - dissipation - regardless if tropical or extratropical. Here is what is necessary to make a dissipation in my books:
  • Absorption by another tropical or extratropical low or front
  • Circulation completely lost
  • Sight of storm lost
In 2005, the only dissipation date that is incorrectly marked on the infoboxes right now is for Hurricane Maria (its damage had not yet been done when it became extratropical), but I cannot find the exact date of dissipation. The best way to figure it out correctly is by the NHC reports - if it says "Remnant Low" or "Wave", it doesn't count (unless in a break between tropical periods), but if it says "Extratropical", it does count.
Here are three examples: Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Katrina.
Hurricane Isabel is listed as September 20, 2003, and should be, the correct time should be listed as 0600 UTC September 20 (2:00 am EDT). That was when Isabel, still with its identity, merged into a larger extratropical low at high latitudes. (It was over James Bay at the time around 53°N!)
Hurricane Dennis is listed as July 13, 2005. That is also correct - it never actually became extratropical (due to tropical air reaching well past 45°N), but rather lost its identity. The time was 0600 UTC July 13 (1:00 am CDT).
Hurricane Katrina is listed as August 31, 2005. That is also correct (although it was found to have merged with the front at about 44°N, not 48°N as I first thought). It became extratropical but kept its identity until the amalgamation at 1200 UTC August 31 (8:00 am EDT).
Exceptions should be made, however, if the remnant low is still destructive (i.e. with Ivan - although it redeveloped), in which case it should be done case-by-case. CrazyC83 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, extratropical portions of storms should not count. They are for tropical cyclones, with subtropical included due to ambiguity between tropical and subtropical. Isabel should not be listed as September 20. It should be listed as September 19, the day it turned extratropical. For convenience, dissipation should include became extratropical. Remember, these are tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What was the result of this? Is the duration for storms only for tropical or subtropical status? Hurricanehink 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I was not aware of this project when I first started converting over tables to templates. So, I want to make sure that any work I have done, or will create is compatible. Therefore, I have a few suggestions/questions:

--Mcmillen76 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just a few thoughts on this:

Jdorje 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Storm tracks

I've uploaded a vast number of tracking charts. See [2] for a complete list. All Atlantic and EPac storms that have articles should now have tracking charts to go with them. I also uploaded charts for Atlantic cat5's that didn't have articles (these are included in the season articles, though I don't rule out the possibility for writing articles for these storms). Also (as an exercise) I uploaded tracks for all the named 2005 storms. I don't have much for wpac, nindian, or southern storms yet though; these are harder since the JTWC "best-track" data doesn't include storm names (only numbers). It is now well within the realm of possibility for me to upload a storm track for every known Atlantic hurricane (1851-present) to be included in their season pages...although with the controversy caused by including the 2005 tracks I don't plan to do this any time soon. One thing that could be done to help here is to help set up redirects from the "canonical" name I have used for linking storms from their tracks on wikipedia commons (like Hurricane Hugo (1989) or 1900 Galveston hurricane) to the actual articles. Jdorje 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One problem is the naming of numbered storms like Tropical Cyclone 05B. If I treat this as an unnamed storm it should be Image:1999 05B tropical cyclone track.png. As a named storm it would be Image:05B 1999 track.png. Jdorje 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting problem there. The 5B will probably be sufficent, but that's just me. Not sure what to say about the storm tracks. Not every year before 1950 mentions every storm. Hurricanehink 20:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in generating some images, but the links to the software on freeciv.org are outdated. Could anyone please provide current links to the (software)files? TIA ghw 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of T.D. in articles

From what I've seen, the Atlantic articles from 2003-backwards don't include the tropical depressions in the articles, but are featured in the button bar (where it has one). I think that either we include depressions in articles, or leave them out entirely, taking them off the button bar in the process. No half-and-half business. What do you think? -- Sarsaparilla39 23:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Include 'em! Or remove them from all articles (including the 2004-onwards ones). Jdorje 00:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, all or nothing. Personally, I say nothing, unless a tropical depression was notable. For example, if a depression caused $1 million in damage and killed some people, it deserves to be mentioned. There should be a separate section for them if anything, but I believe that most tropical depression references can be removed. Hurricanehink 04:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not all or nothing. If you consider a notable TD worthy of inclusion, then all TDs should get a mention. Jdorje 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. We should be consistent across all seasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you lot consider this worthy of discussion? -- Sarsaparilla39 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Yea, it should be discussed. I say get rid of all of them, unless they cause moderate damage or deaths (SD 22 might be an example of this). Otherwise, get them out! Hurricanehink 13:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep them. I'm noticing in my Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Climatology for the United States that a few tropical depressions were significant for rainfall. It's short sighted to just exclude all tropical depressions. User Talk:thegreatdr 21:10 UTC 7 May 2006

I agree. I'm on the notability bandwagon, and let's face it people, these TDs contribute NOTHING to the season. I personally can't see much in the way of notable tropical depressions. That means that the button bars need to be fixed, but that shouldn't be too much of a hassle. We should leave the 2005 ones until the end of the season, to save on bother and arguments. On the other hand; if we're noting them at all, maybe we should use an "Other Storms" section, not unlike the unnamed TSs of the 50s and 60s, and have two sentences or so about them. There, they're kept out of the way of the main storms, but still written about. How does that sound? -- Sarsaparilla39 13:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a really good idea. You have my vote. This way, you can mention what the TD does, while keeping it short and away from the main article. Hurricanehink 13:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Check out the sandbox. Post your comments somewhere at the bottom. -- Sarsaparilla39 14:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Some weeks ago I suggested moving the whole 'storms' section of the 2005 season to a separate article, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms. All notable storms (with their own article) would be removed from this article, and it woudl only include info about the otherwise-non-notable storms. Jdorje 18:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
So.... what was the result of this? Should every TD be mentioned if they are known? Hurricanehink 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you need a list, I have a basic list of ALL the candidates for inclusion into the tropical cyclone best track database from the 1940's to 2003 in Excel format. It does mention which were numbered depressions, but it somewhat lacking in location of the systems. Unfortunately, tropical depressions have only been well-documented since the late 1960's, minus most of the 1980's. User talk:thegreatdr 21:13, 7 May 2006
If they lack the location of the systems, then it might be a little useless. Such a list could be useful if there were an article on Tropical depression, though only dates don't help much. My vote goes for if there's information on the depression, add it. Hurricanehink 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere Seasons

The current setup for southern hemisphere seasons is confusing and hard to follow because it sometimes seperates individual storms into different sections when it enters a new basin. I propose abolishing the major basin headings and replacing it with a season summary/activity section that goes something like this: "This season, 4 cyclones formed in the south Pacific, 9 formed in the southeast indian ocean, and 14 formed in the southwest Indian Ocean. One of the south Pacific cyclones crossed into the SE Indian Ocean, and 3 of the SE Indian cyclones crossed into the SW Indian."

Under the current system, if a cyclone crosses into a different basin, it gets a new heading. Thus, if Cyclone Alice gets crosses into the SW Indian, it would get renamed to Cyclone Bob and get a new heading elsewhere in the article. It would not go into the Cyclone Alice section. Under my proposal, it would simply get the heading Cyclone Alice-Bob, and the Bob part of Alice would go under the same heading. The headings would be in the same order that all storms in the Southern Hemisphere formed. In the 2004-05 season article, some of the headings for systems in one basin are empty just because all the info on that system is under a different heading because it entered a new basin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember reading your original post before. Anyway, I agree with you, the current layout by region is terrible and will make little sense to anyone. To find a storm I have to look through the entire table of contents to see where it is, since it is not ordered in any way that makes sense to me. Your proposed layout sounds much better, but I agree it should be discussed on the current season article (which has a number of active editors). — jdorje (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, whos doing the Southern Hemisphere seasons?, because im the only one who is doing them and nobody had added any storms to the seasonal articles in that section.Storm05 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After doing the 1492-1889 for the Atlantic, all of the North Indian, and much of the Western Pacific, I made a promise to myself that I would not do the Southern Hemisphere, so I cannot help you there. Based on what I see, you seem to be alone. Considering no one else has helped you, you do not have to continue, but it would be nice for Wikipedia. Hurricanehink 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it is good just to create dozens of new stub articles. Go through systematically and fill out the articles completely before moving on to the next one. Jdorje 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Storm05, why do you insist on creating stub articles that you then leave for the rest of us to fill out or delete? Why do you refuse to discuss creation of new articles before you create them? 1977-78_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is currently the worst, but every new southern hemisphere article you have created is a stub. We don't need more stubs. We need more content. Jdorje 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Completely agreed. You really need to calm down on the article creating, and actually listen to what we say. Why do you want help from us when you can't listen to the constructive critism we give to you? Hurricanehink 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry , but information before 1993 is hard to find and I have to rely on these Internet Sources: [3], [4]Storm05 13:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

....So don't. No one has a gun to your head, and if you can't find good information, then you don't need to worry about it. It is better to work on bettering existing articles than making new, short ones. Hurricanehink 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a more appropriate place to bring this up than on the season article, but there it will get a wider audience. The Southern Hemisphere is treated poorly by the WikiProject at this time, I mean really awfully. This isn't like the combination of CPac and EPac, which is logical as the Central is usually quiet. It is almost like having the 2005 Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. I proposed on the 2005-06 a split into the SW Indian, S Pacific and Australian seasons. Maybe with the older seasons, this will less useful, but it is at least more logical. The 2005-06 S Hemisphere article is really poor currently, Severe Cyclone Larry, which would probably be retired in the Atlantic and could get an FA standard article has only 5 sentences covering it in the season article. --Nilfanion 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Zone Crossers

We need a naming convention for renamed cyclones. Atlantic to EPac crossers Hattie, Fifi and Joan are all under the Atlantic name, but Hurricane Cesar redirects to Hurricane Cesar-Douglas. There are five options as I see it:

  1. Give the article the double name and redirect the parts to it (as Cesar Douglas has)
  2. Keep the double name, but only redirect the retired name to it. (None do this)
  3. Keep the single name unless it makes landfall under both names (This would mean renaming Cesar-Douglas to Hurricane Cesar, and renaming Hattie and Fifi to Hurricane Hattie-Simone-Inga and Hurricane Fifi-Orlene.
  4. Keep it at the retired name, and redirect the new name to it. (None do this)
  5. Keep it at the retired name, and mention the appropriate storm at the other name's disambiguation (As Joan/Miriam and Fifi/Orlene do.)

This would also apply to TS Allison in 1989 if it gets an article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Screw that previous comment.

On a related note, I managed to build and upload combined track maps for these 4 hurricanes. Are there any other basin-crossers? Typhoon Gay I know about. Jdorje 09:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. (1) seems reasonable...(2) I don't know what it means...(3) is not a good criteria...(4) is a reasonable criteria, though it's possible both names are retired...(5) is not good. An additional problem is crossovers aren't well or officially documented AFAIK...for instance I've read it is disputed whether Hattie-Simone was actually also Inga. Jdorje 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The way it is is fine. The more notable of the location should determine the storm, unless both are fairly notable. Fifi may need to be changed to Fifi-Orlene, but the others are fine IMO.
My view: it depends on the situation. If it was notable under both names, it should have the double name. If it was only notable under one name, it should take the more notable name and the other name should redirect. CrazyC83 04:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So what do you guys think of Hurricane Hattie-Simone? Should it be Hurricane Hattie-Simone-Inga? Personally I thought it was good as Hurricane Hattie. Jdorje 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it should only be given a double name if it stayed at least a tropical storm the whole way. This would apply to Cesar and Joan. It would also apply to Irene of 1971 but that storm doesn't have an article that I know of. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Storm track request list

What storms need storm-path images? I can easily make such images if I know the info for the storm. The info needed, of course, is the year and the name of the storm. For wpac, spac, and nindian storms I need the storm *id* instead of the name. Also needed is the title of the storm (Hurricane, Tropical Storm, Typhoon, etc.). Currently AFAIK all Epac and Atlantic storms have tracks...any that do not can be posted here. Jdorje 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline

Cyclone 05B I already set up (along with some others), but I haven't uploaded it because I haven't decided on a naming convention. I think it should be "year basin type number", like "1999 North Indian tropical cyclone 05B". But are north indian storms called cyclones or tropical cyclones? Jdorje 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Err, compare to "1975 Pacific hurricane 12". Note that "Hurricane 12 (1975)" isn't sufficient because the Atlantic had a hurricane 12 too (although the Atlantic one probably had a name, there are certainly other storms where only numbers were used, like "Hurricane 7 (1938)"). Jdorje 22:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Tropical depressions in the Pacific Ocean have the suffixes W, C, and E for Western, Central, and Eastern respectively. The JTWC labels (N and S) Atlantic storms with an L suffix. B and A are used in the North Indian Pcean for the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. Hurricane 12's track picture could have "hurricane_12C_1975_track.png" as its name, for example. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline
I don't think that's good, since it distinguishes cpac from epac (which we don't do) and doesn't cover the other basins (e.g., the perfect storm which is "1991 Atlantic hurricane 8"). Jdorje 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at ((storm path needed)) and Category:Hurricane articles needing a track map. Jdorje 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you typically only do Hurricane articles, but Michelle had a good idea for Hurricane Lili in 1984. Rather than making a hurricane article about the long-lasting December hurricane, it would help readers understand the storm more by having a track map of the Hurricane on the seasonal article. Though Unisys (Lili's Track) doesn't show it, NHC indicated that Lili was subtropical until Advisory 33 when Lili became a hurricane. The NHC best track is located here. Hurricanehink 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think every storm we mention anywhere should have a track map. But I think it would take a bot to upload them all. Anyway, Lili is done. Jdorje 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The Lili track brings back the problem of telling what direction the storm is moving... Jdorje 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. That might be a ton of work to do one for every storm, and is probably not needed. People should have a good enough sense of geography to be able to read the summaries, and if they can't, will they be able to read a map as well? It would be neat, but I personally wouldn't want to see you spend all that time for those storms. Maybe we should just get a list for the unusual tracks and uncertain paths. As the direction, if they read the storm summary they should be able to figure it out. Maybe have an arrow or a "Start" and "End" on the paths, not sure. Hurricanehink 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused about the max winds of the Louisiana Hurricane of 1915, and I'm afraid it may be because of a bug in my track generator program. However the error shows up in the UNISYS tracks as well. The problem is the max winds for the hurricane are given in the best-track as 115 knots. This is 132.25 mph which rounds off to 130 mph which is Category 3. however 132.25 is really into the Category 4 range. I thought I had accounted for rounding properly, but it seems my track and the unisys one do show this hurricane as reaching Category 4 status. Anyone reading the article will therefore be greatly confused since the article lists it as a Category 3 hurricane. Jdorje 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question about the Lousisiana Hurricane. I personally have no idea except to call it a 120 knot hurricane. I know it is incorrect, but this way, it can show the Category 4 intensity. In addition, you can't tell the intensities other than the SSS in the maps (i.e. no difference on map between 75 and 90).

On a different note, I have a potential track map for Catarina. Here in Gary Padget's Tropical Summary, it shows a track map for the hurricane/cyclone/whatever for its lifetime. It isn't the official NHC, but considering no official agency recognizes the storm, this is probably the best bet. Hurricanehink 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

All right. I just went through and added a number of storm paths in bulk. So, in future to get a track map put up, do this:

Jdorje 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bhola cyclone's track needs to be changed. It shows it as a tropical depression the whole way which is clearly not true. Let's use gray because we really have no freaking clue what the intensity of the storm was. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
We have no set color for "unknown strength". Once we pick one I'll be happy to use it in the tracks.

I added some more tracks, including South ones. The best track for older southern hemisphere storms seems to have the windspeed really low. See Cyclone Tracy, Cyclone Ada, Cyclone Althea for instance. Anyone know why that might be? Jdorje 07:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm not sure. It might have to do with the Australian hurricane scale or something? Hurricanehink 21:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. The wind speeds are supposed to be given in knots; the SSS or cyclone scale aren't supposed to have anything to do with that. And Cyclone Zoe shows the correct speeds. Cyclone_Leon-Eline is from 2,000 and actually shows some of the same problems: the storm is shown weaker than the article claims while hitting madagascar, but at the correct strength for its mozambique landfall. For older storms the speeds are simply too low. Jdorje 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, then I have absolutely no idea. Maybe an email should be sent to JTWC? Hurricanehink 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Storm track question

In the older storm track images, extratropical is indicated by using the gray color. This ran into problems with some storms because the storm's strength when extratropical is fairly important. The biggest example is 1959 Mexico hurricane where it didn't reach cat5 until extratropical (according to the best track at least). So, I changed it: now the color always indicates strength and shape is used to indicate type. Tropical cyclones use circles, extratropical use squares, and subtropical or non-tropical use triangles. I haven't uploaded any new tracks except for 1959 Mexico hurricane. This does make it harder to distinguish tropical from non-tropical, but when looking at the full-sized image it conveys more information. (It also needs a key, which I will add shortly.) So my question is: is this new way better, or is something else needed? Jdorje 21:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure the 1959 cane was extratropical? Unisys says it wasn't, but that's beside the point. The new way might not be better. The circles and squares look similar, and at a quick glance, they could get confusing. I don't remember how you did it before, but could you have one for ED, ES, EH, and EMH (extratropical depression etc.)? I personally don't have much of an opinion, as I appreciate the long and arduous work you put into making the track files. Hurricanehink 21:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Pretty sure. From the HURDAT:

03335 10/23/1959 M= 7 15 SNBR= 102 NOT NAMED XING=1 03340 10 23*126 967 75 0*127 976 75 0*130 985 75 0*135 993 75 0*
03345 10 24*1401000 75 0*1451008 75 0*1501016 75 0*1561023 75 0*
03350 10 25*1611029 100 0*1651034 100 0*1681039 110 0*1701045 110 0*
03355 10 26*1721052 120 0*1751056 120 0*1781058 120 0*1831057 120 0*
03360 10 27X1881053 120 0X1931048 120 0X1971044 140 958X2011040 45 0*
03365 10 28X2051037 45 0X2101033 25 0X2161029 25 0X2221026 25 0*
03370 10 29X2281023 25 0X2341021 25 0X2401020 25 0* 0 0 0 0*
03375 HR

However the 'X' isn't explained in the documentation. '*' in that position means tropical and 'E' means extratropical. I assumed 'X' also means extratropical. So the entry 'X2281023 25 0' means extratropical(?), 22.8 lat, -102.3 long, 25 knot winds, 0 mbar pressure. Jdorje 22:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I think 'X' actually means they don't have a clue as to whether it was tropical or not. 'X's in other areas of NOAA mean 'not available', so I'm assuming that holds true for the Best Track too. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That sounds right. I seriously doubt there can even be an extratropical category 5 hurricane, let alone an extratropical major hurricane. Hurricanehink 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, an interesting piece of trivia: The 1938 New England Hurricane was technically extratropical when it hit Long Island, even though it had the winds of a Category 2 (100 mph). This is the strongest extratropical storm I've heard of.
Wouldn't a Category 5 hurricane be a major hurricane by definition? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think he got a little tongue tied. I think he accidentally reversed "Category 5" and "major". -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Typhoon disambiguation

Right now we have typhoon and hurricane disambigs (either at Tropical Storm heading or Typhoon/Hurricane heading, depending on the storms). I've thought about it, and perhaps we want to disambig the Philippine names for typhoons too? For example, see Typhoon Maring. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely. However, there is certainly possibility for confusion in categorization when a single storm has multiple names in the same category. Jdorje 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh... do explain? NSLE (讨论+extra) 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a good example present, but one contrived one is that Typhoon Maring and Typhoon Longwang (disambiguation) would both show up in Category:2005 Pacific typhoon season, but would actually be the same storm. Jdorje 20:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
List of 2005 names to dab. Note, names Huaning, Isang and Maring were also used for 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 etc under the old naming system. I say we just include the ones in the 2001 and on naming system with a note about the old system, see Maring for example.
  • Feria (2005: STY Haitang; 2001: TY Utor)
  • Gorio (2005: TY Gorio; 2001: TS Trami)
  • Huaning (2005: TY Sanvu; 2001: TY Yutu)
  • Isang (2005: TY Talim; 2001: TY Toraji)
  • Kiko (2005: TY Khanun; 2001: TY Nari)
  • Labuyo (2005: TY Damrey; 2001: TY Lekima)
  • Maring (has been done)
  • Ondoy (2005: TS Tembin; 2001: TS28W - not recognised by JTWC)
That's about it for 2001/05. NSLE (讨论+extra) 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't seem complicated though...that's exactly the purpose of disambiguation. Jdorje 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, we could then use Tropical Storm Kiko to dab it, noting that the typhoons named Kiko also had a second, official name. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the names that were also used for TDs and invests. NSLE (讨论+extra) 11:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion about disambiguation articles is below:

ex.1) Fran is used in the Atlantic and the Western Pacific: the name is used as hurricanes and typhoons. So the title of Fran disambiguation article begins with "Tropical Storm Fran".
ex.2) Olaf is used in the Eastern Pacific and the Southern Hemisphere: the name is used as hurricanes and cyclones. So the title of Olaf disambiguation article begins with "Tropical Storm Olaf".
ex.3) Emily is used in the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific: the name is used only as hurricanes. So the title of Emily disambiguation article begins with "Hurricane Emily".
ex.4) Wilda is used only in the Western Pacific: the name is used only as typhoons (not used as hurricanes). So the title of Wilda disambiguation article begins with "Typhoon Wilda".
ex.1) Alex has an individual article "Hurricane Alex (2004)". So the title of Alex disambiguation article end up with "(disambiguation)".
ex.2) Hermine doesn't have an individual article. So the title of Hermine disambiguation article is without "(disambiguation)".

--HERB 13:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Known Vandals

I am personally sick of the vandals, so why not list them all here. This applies to any basin or article that is continually vandalized by one person. Hurricanehink 01:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to say anything about these guys, but make sure you don't confuse vandals with idiots. There was some guy who kept changing the "29 direct, 36 indirect" deaths on Hurricane Andrew to "65"...but that's not vandalism, it's just failure to understand our system. The entry was changed to "65 (29 direct; 36 indirect)" and I hope there will be no more problems. Jdorje 07:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
65 is fine in the article, but not the infobox. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Knots and nautical miles

I grow increasingly frustrated by the overuse and interchanging of knots and nautical miles with real units. When writing an article, the first priority is to keep the same units for everything. If you use nautical miles, you have to use them (and knots) everywhere. But knots and NM are bad since nobody knows what they are. Use mph and km/h instead. Jdorje 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you changed quite a few, and I can see why you're frustrated. I just took it right from the JTWC or NHC report, figuring the exact versions are better (I see I was wrong). I'll try and remember that for the future. I don't think I use knots (I hope I don't, I hate them). I know, you're not directing your comment towards me, but I'm letting you know what I do and what I will do for the future. Hurricanehink 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there is the issue of exactness. Most info is given in knots so converting it loses information. A related problem is with inHg in older hurricanes. In 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, I gave the original inHg pressure values, with mbar/hpa as followups, whereas normally I don't think it's important to include inHg. With knots it's an even bigger problem since they all get rounded off to units of 5, so sometimes the mph and km/h will not match for hurricanes. So if you do give knots you have to be consistent and give knots/nm as the primary measurement everywhere through the article - and even more importantly, you have to make sure to give the miles (mph) and km (km/h) measurements alongside each value. Jdorje 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess what's more important is to include mph and km/h conversions always, no matter what the primary form is. Jdorje 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hopefully other Wicanepidians will follow this (what? we hurricane wikipedians need a name). Hurricanehink 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Prehistoric officialness

I already commented on the Discussion page for List of Atlantic hurricane seasons but I think this really needs examination.It's misleading to say (as even the 1492-1524 article does) that any season that happened before the June-1st-to-November-30th definition was decided "officially" began and ended on those dates.Some different terminology should be used to make clear that retrospective standards are being employed.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely. I already considered using a template for the rote-introduction paragraph, and suggested in talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season that the rote-introduction paragraph does not make for a good introduction. Jdorje 07:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones by region

Check out Category:Tropical cyclones by region. Some user created the Mexico sub-category, and I decided this should be a whole collection of categories. However at this time it's quite empty. I hope to create a sub-category for each U.S. state and one for every other nation...for Atlantic hurricanes anyway. This can replace the "history" categories in each hurricane's article. Unlike the by-strength, by-basin, and by-season categories however, this category is not as precise: each hurricane may have more than one category, or none at all (though maybe a new category "hurricanes not making landfall" is appropriate here). Jdorje 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to make landfall to affect an area, and IMO, extratropical counts if it is damaging there. What about storms that reach into inland states and are damaging there, will they be included? (Of course, we need to be realistic, don't include states like North Dakota and Montana where tropical cyclones will likely never reach - they'd be blocked by a ridge or front coming out of Canada if they tried to go that far in that direction). CrazyC83 19:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
One blanket category should cover that I think, like Category:Inland United States hurricanes. As for landfall, I agree...Hazel should go into Category:Hurricanes in Canada, obviously. About extratropical I'm not sure. Jdorje 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Many storms will go into multiple locations, for example Hazel would also go into the lists for Grenada, Haiti, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York... CrazyC83 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course. For the Caribbean however, I find it hard to tell how to break things up. Currently I'm just changing any "XXX history" entries to "XXX hurricanes", which I then make as a new category that's a subset of "XXX history". However there are so many Caribbean islands/countries that this might give way too many categories. Instead we could categorize them as Cuba/DR/Haiti/Jamaica/PR/Leeward/Windward/Bahamas...but a few islands (like Grenada?) may still not fit into any of these categories. Jdorje 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd go for the safe side and include a separate category for each island nation. After all, some storms were small enough that they only affected 1 or 2 of them (i.e. Ivan and Emily in Grenada). CrazyC83 06:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the subcategory names in Category:Tropical cyclones by region should be changed, in light of a comment someone made on Category:Hurricanes in the Canary Islands. That category only contains one storm: Tropical Storm Delta. Delta was never a hurricane, and it wasn't tropical when it affected the Canaries. I think the categories should be renamed to something like "Tropical cyclones in XXXX" instead of "Hurricanes in XXXX", and/or a note indicating that the systems need not necessarily be tropical when they reach the area in question. That would probably prevent further confusion in the future. --Coredesat 07:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New French Tropical Cyclone templates released...

Hello,

I'm a French Wikipédia user and I've created new templates to insert useful data into tropical cyclones articles.

Active and inactive tropical cyclones infobox :

Tropical cyclone footer :

If you can understand French a little bit at least, I suggest you to take a look at this link : fr:Ouragan Dennis (2005).

--The Shadow Knows

That infobox looks very good. Jdorje 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It's beautiful, I love it.
They also made articles for every storm.
Including Lee.
Eh, to each pedia her own. --Golbez 06:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Truly amazing. You've jumped ahead of us!!! We should do the same thing here, including articles for the least notable storms (fish-spinners and depressions), and create those infoboxes...you'd be a big help! We have all winter to work on them too... CrazyC83 02:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

((infobox hurricane))/Lowest pressure

Do the lowest pressures also need a conversion to inches of mercury? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlikely. Doesn't everyone use millibars or hPa these days? But since the row title takes up 2 lines, it won't expand the table at all to include it - particularly for older hurricanes, where the inHg measurement is the "original" one. Jdorje 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Subproject of a new WikiProject Weather and Climate?

Should we broaden out some to make this part of a larger project covering all weather events and details? After all, many of us have worked on other non-tropical sites too...(I'm currently debating on whether the current snow/ice storm, with 500,000 without power and one dead so far, warrants an article) CrazyC83 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this wikiproject should remain distinct; most of the guidelines here would not apply to other weather events. However a WikiProject:Meteorology (or Weather and Climate? What's the difference?) could be a good "parent" project. Jdorje 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource?

Would Wikisource be a useful place to put things like notable (or maybe ALL) discussions/public advisories, the tropical cyclone reports, etc.? We can't assume that they will always be available on the NHC's site, and they ARE public domain... Any thoughts? --Golbez 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not everything, but stuff like the TCRs should definitely go there. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding the best-track files there. Jdorje

Category colors

Everybody's arguing about the category color changes, but they are doing it all over the place. I've seen separate discussions at ((Saffir-Simpson)), User:AySz88/Sandbox#New_hurricane_color_palatte, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, and they all repeat the same arguments. To actually reach any kind of consensus this discussion needs to be unified, either here or at Template_talk:Storm colour cat5. Jdorje 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is going on at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable Infobox Pics

I believe the chain of command should go, from top choice to last resort, like this:

Thoughts and opinions? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I'd make one tweak. I personally think Visible satellite photos should be first, followed by Infrared satellite shots. I think Visibles give a truer perspective of the storm. Hurricanehink 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think no pic should be preferred to using the track pic. The track pic should go in the storm history section to accompany the text there. An having no pic leaves the nopic category intact so somebody will look for a real picture. Jdorje 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Hink on the Visibles. They're my favorite. Jdorje, the nopic would still be in place for all storms prior to 1851 and plenty afterwards, so let's not fret about it falling by the wayside. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That brings up something that was brought up on the Dennis FAC: The track pic (or any other pic) shouldn't be left-adjusted and starting a section at the same time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not? And where should it go and how should it be aligned? Jdorje 03:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know why. It is a style issue which I'm trying to find in the Manuals of Stlye. However, I read somewhere that a picture needs to be right-aligned if it is starting a section, unless there is an infobox or another image that would cause problems with text flow. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait, how is this related again? And the problem with being left adjusted is the heading right? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is related to this because Jdorje brought up the location of the track picture above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, whether it's related or not I'd like an answer ;-). There are hundreds of storm articles with storm tracks and almost all of them come at the beginning of the "Storm history" section, left-aligned. I don't see what could possibly be wrong with this, but it would be a pain to fix (unless we just change ((storm path)) to be right-aligned by default, which would have its own problems). Jdorje 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearing the overloaded "Storms" sections of season pages

Since many older storms have too little information to warrant their own articles, yet the overall length of the season pages are too long in most cases, what about splitting them off to a Storms page, i.e. Storms of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, with the information - and infoboxes - for the storms that do not have their own article. (If a section gets too long there, it can quickly take its own article) Storms with their own articles should only have a link there, no information. (Should not be done for 2005 and future seasons as articles are all planned - even the least-notable storms from 2005 I've been able to make more than stubs for) CrazyC83 17:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For 2005 I believe a simple table listing all the hurricanes with links to the individual articles should replace the entire storms section. Jdorje 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What is a hurricane season but the sum of its storms? Removing them would be like writing about the World Series without entries for the individual games. People just need to learn how to follow summary style. If a storm has its own article, you don't need to put very much in the season article. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And that's exactly what the "Season summary" section already does! (Well, right now it's a bit incomplete since nobody cares about it much, but it already gives all of the actual important information about each storm.) Jdorje 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But for most seasons, there would be so little stuff left. I would agree to having each storm having their own article before this, because at least the storm links are right there, though for the record I am still against that. Hurricanehink 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Completely agreed. Jdorje, in most season summeries, only notable storms are mentioned. The storms section describes them all. Without it, we would be devoid of info on a lot of storms. And Cyrius hits the nail on the head. A table just simply won't cut it. And I'm against creating articles for every storm for any season. The main article is and should remain king, the subpages secondary. -- Hurricane Eric§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Some user has been adding ((hurricane)) to tc meteorology articles. The original scope of the wikiproject, however, was just to cover historical data about tcs. Should these articles be removed from the wikiproject or should the scope be expanded? Jdorje 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Annular hurricane and 1-2-3 rule; there may have been others. See Category:Tropical cyclone meteorology. Jdorje 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of tc articles in the spanish wikipedia

I've noticed that Spanish wikipedia has very few information about this important assignment, can I help translating these articles into Spanish. Would it help? I need an answer juan andrés 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to ask, just go ahead and start! I can't help, as I can't speak a word of Spanish (bar Este usuario no entiende espanol :P :P) but the more languages the better. -- Sarsaparilla39 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
At Talk:List of notable Atlantic hurricanes there is a discussion over the most notable Atlantic hurricanes of all time. If you're translating articles, you might want to start with those. Jdorje 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Article intros

Every article has an intro. For storm articles, this introduction should always mention certain things:

All of the above are things I would consider manditory for a B-class article. Of course there are other things that can be mentioned:

Overall introduction should be kept brief. Jdorje 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that and can live with the others. I also agree that the intro should be brief. That's why I support the current intro for the season articles. I think that you should start with a basic sentence and then give the most notable fact about it. Example: "Hurricane Wilma was an intense Category 5 hurricane that heavily damaged Mexico and southern Florida. Wilma is the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record with a minimum pressure of 882 millibars..." -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by season articles? IMO the problem with the current format is that it is too wordy because the first sentence (or two) gives the official bounds which are not particularly notable. Jdorje 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The bounds of the season are notable. They're something that the reader should keep in mind when reading records and stuff. The current intro is a nessisary evil Jdorje. We're still an encyclopedia, no matter what kind. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The bounds of the season are notable, and worth mentioning in the article. They are not necessary for a two-paragraph overview of the season. Jdorje 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Future storm addition: Tornado list

I made this for tornado outbreak pages, but I think it can apply here when a tornado outbreak occurs within a hurricane. This list should keep track of all the tornadoes and when they occur. It could be included in a sub-section "List of tornadoes" (or, in a large outbreak, as a sub-page to a storm). It should be a section introduced for the 2006 season.

F# Location County Time (UTC) Path length (miles) Damage
{state/country}
F1 Anytown Unknown 0000 5 miles
(8 km) 		Several barns were destroyed and one home was damaged. No injuries reported.
As verified by Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Weather Service.

If a tornado outbreak inside a hurricane gets a separate page, it should be named Hurricane (name) Tornado Outbreak. I wouldn't worry about doing it for past storms, but for future storms, it is an idea I came up with.

CrazyC83 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Never hurts to be organized. Hurricanehink 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it was more of an afterthought for here - I was trying to reorganize recent tornado outbreaks and realized with the number of tornadoes reported in recent hurricanes, it wouldn't hurt to bring it over here too. It would include any part of the storm, including the extratropical phase or areas of inland states. The Fujita scale background color is basically the same color scheme as the Saffir-Simpson scale, with F0 = storm. The "List of tornadoes" sub-section will be in the "Impact" section, after the regional impacts. If there were only a few isolated tornadoes, I wouldn't worry about adding it. CrazyC83 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I am starting to work on research to find all the information for past storms - starting with the last few years. I am also working on trying to find specific death toll information to current standards, although that could be difficult. It won't appear on the pages until I have the information (if I find it).

Make sure you include source links for any info you find! Lots of storms have no references for their "total damages". Jdorje 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
For direct deaths, the source is always the Tropical Cyclone Report. Often I'm able to get the state but not the county so they will go down as "unknown". CrazyC83 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to get the lists for Charley, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis and Isabel, and the numbers sometimes go over the NHC figures (i.e. Isabel at 53, not 50). I don't think I'll be able to compile lists from before then (at least to the current levels of detail) because of the fact that information becomes more prevalent with recent storms. However, if I find the information, I will include it. CrazyC83 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Note, even if the source is the TCR there should still be a reference. It needs to be obvious where every bit of data comes from so future writers can verify it. Also, I'd say differentiating death tolls by country is more important than by state...a lot of Caribbean hurricanes affected many countries and could use tables. Hink's been adding these, and I've added a few...but our tables look very different than yours. Why do you prefer that weird blue/yellow color scheme? Jdorje 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The blue and grey was always there since it was first introduced by someone else (as an experiment) with Katrina. At first, it was only for US storms, but Wilma was the first that affected both the US and other countries to a great degree. The yellow was added to make sure that each section had its own color. I see it has been changed since - that should be the color scheme used for 2006 and beyond as it becomes an operational template. I'd only add it though when the death toll reaches about 10 or so, since a small toll could easily be written out well in the impact section.

It will also be used for other weather-related disasters as well (as necessary), not just hurricanes. CrazyC83 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tornado project update: March 5th

I have made sections on my user page for the tornado outbreak charts for storms that indeed had a confirmed outbreak (Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Emily pending TCR). In most cases, they would be sections of the existing article (except Katrina, which will definitely have its own subarticle, and possibly Rita which will be discussed further). CrazyC83 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Level of detail in season articles

One thing I notice many season articles do not follow is the principle of increasing detail. The amount of detail given on a particular storm in the intro should be less than what is given in that storm's section; often the intro has more detail on the important storms than those storm sections have. Also, more detail should be given on more notable storms, regardless of the presence of other articles. Just because a hurricane has a separate article does not mean it deserves less mention in the season article. The season article needs to stand on its own - with other articles providing only supplementary information.

For older articles, this means we need to remember to balance the article. For new articles, it is a problem because the level of detail will just grow and grow. Eventually you have the decision of cutting information out and losing it, or splitting data off into a separate article. But the principle of balance means you can't just cut from one storm to shorten the article a bit - all storms sections should be kept balanced in length so you may need to cut equally from all storms. The format currently in use for the 2005 season (with a separate List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms articles solves this by allowing information to be moved back and forth, but there are other ways we could solve it too.

Jdorje 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jdorje, we need to excercise a greater level of discretion on what is said. There are some facts (like the name of a Hurricane Hunter pilot) that just don't need to be said. Those are the facts that I try to cut from the longer sections, like Bonnie in 2004AHS. The different sections can have different, but not disproportional lengths. We don't need a set length for all sections, that's instruction creep. We get an attachment to these menial facts and demand that they stay, but that causes the length problem, therefore cut the menial facts. And that doesn't mean cut the entire storms section, that was one ridiculous proposition that made me upset. It sounded very smart-alec to me. The storms section is the heart of the article. For a reason I have yet to understand, you guys saw a need to give 2005AHS a heart transplant. That's why your first paragraph has been my policy ever since I came to the hurricane pages back in the glory days. The restrictions on length should be much looser than your personal preference. Your length restrictions are too strict. We shouldn't even get nearvous until 80 KB and start cutting stuff at 100 KB. 40 KB is WAY too strict. There needs to be more information on the current season pages than that (on the same page and not on subpages, Jdorje). Cutting or moving all that information does more harm than good. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, length insn't an issue in FAs. The only reason why there is a recommended size of 32 KB is that some old browsers choke with pages that are longer than that, but otherwise, it is usually not an issue in FA nominations. For example, Attack on Pearl Harbor is 52 KB long, and Race is a whopping 127 KB. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

tcexpand

I added a new template, ((tcexpand)) that is similar to ((expand)), along with its own category Tropical cyclone articles to be expanded. The category is somewhat unpopulated at this point. — jdorje (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm pics templates

Storm pics are working pretty good. I only wanted to advice this: Please do not put storm pics for old seasons (before 1950). altough this has not happened I'm warning because it will be very hard finding images for older seasons juan andrés 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The storm tracks exist separately from satellite images. Eric has some (partially founded) concerns about adding pictures to articles unnecessarily, but in any case whether we add storm paths is a separate issue from whether to add satellite images. However, before 1890 (or perhaps 1893) the quality of the best-track data deteriorates and it is probably not worthwhile to add storm tracks. — jdorje (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the first satellite image was taken on April 1, 1960. The earliest satellite image of a hurricane that I've seen is of Hurricane Carla in 1961 (and it sucked, by the way). I've heard reports that one exists of Hurricane Donna in 1960, but I haven't seen it. So you're not going to find any satellite images of storms before 1960. I've also seen radar images of storms back to Hurricane Alice on New Years Day, 1955. Beyond that, you're going to be looking at aerial photos from Hurricane Hunters, damage photos, action shots (during the storm), or nothing at all. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

2004 EP needs love

As I just stated on its talk page, when I was alone in making 2004 Pacific hurricane season, I only wrote about the notable storms. Since the precedent has been set in others to mention ALL, someone really needs to flesh this article out. --Golbez 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been going through the atlantic seasons (currently 1950-2004) and making sure all the storms match up with what's in the best-track (s:Atlantic hurricane best track), and in the proper order (the only one that was missing was a 1981 storm, though several were out of order). Somebody should do this for the other basins too. Talk:Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy/EPac_by_year gives a complete list of EPac storms (sometime soon I will make up a similar list, but containing tables for max wind speed, formation, dissipation, etc., for all storms). — jdorje (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New articles

As the portal has a space for new articles, I think that we should only create one new article per week so we won't run out of new articles for the portal. We could perhaps "release" the new article every Monday (or whenever) so that there is one new article for the portal each week. Since it is extremely likely certain that there will be bad/notable hurricanes and typhoons and tropical cyclones in the future, by judiciously conserving our new articles, we won't run out of candidates. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The "selected articles" on the portal are for good articles, not for new articles. However the idea of having one article per week to focus on improving is a good one IMO. — jdorje (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. We should have an Tropical Cyclone Article Improvement Drive of the week. Hurricanehink 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit more aprehensive about that. It sounds a little too restrictive. There are pretty strong pros and cons. So I'm not sure if I'm "fer it or agin it". I'll have to think on it a bit. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I disagree, I don't really think there are particularly strong pros or cons. Pros: it will help focus our efforts on one article, potentially leading to faster work since we communnicate about things more. Cons: potentially overlapping work if more than one person works on an article at the same time. It's not like everyone is forced to work on that article though. We've already been doing this to some degree; as HurricaneHink's been going through the retired Atlantic storms one by one, I've been following and making my own improvements. — jdorje (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was the "Did you know..." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wind speeds in hurricanes vs. tornadoes

Several TC project members have also been very helpful in contributing to tornado events. There does seem to be some confusion, however, in regard to wind speeds. In hurricanes, the direct wind speeds are an integral part of the process in measurement (data collection) and determining strength and category (differentiation). With tornadoes, this just isn't possible, wind speeds are not directly used because they aren't known and aren't measured directly. The Fujita scale is what is used to differentiate tornado intensity and it utilizes damage, it estimates wind speeds correlated to damage but these speeds are not exact, are open to great effect from inordinate variables, and are not calibrated by actual testing.

Wind speeds have been added to infoboxes and event article boxes, as well as used inproperly in the manuscript of some articles, and should immediately be removed (or modified in the manuscript of articles) and it understoood that it is pseudoscientific and unecyclopedic.

It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here are a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm "The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."

"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

Evolauxia 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up on the discussion pages of those particular articles and then change them. This problem shouldn't be a hard one to fix. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have but it seems to be a pervasive problem of sorts and I'm guessing part of that is due to the influence of wind speeds for tropical cyclones, so I'm covering the bases. It's also applicable to the tornado tables that will go into some hurricane articles. Evolauxia 08:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes on AHS writing

I've copyedited most of the post-1950 AHS articles (up to 1990 at this point), and I have some notes that we should keep in mind when doing future writing (of past seasons).

More to come. — jdorje (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say I'm sorry for some of that. I basically wrote all of the 1950-1978 storm summaries. I felt by writing only a little bit about an important storm, it would draw people into the storm article. I guess that was wrong, oh well. You're exactly right about references (again sorry!), and eventually someone should do that. Hopefully we'll be able to use these simple guidelines when writing in the future. Hurricanehink 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AHS naming lists

Naming lists for Atlantic hurricanes go back to 1950, but not a single one of them gives a source. This makes it hard to verify any changes. For instance some anon came through and made this and this edit. Are these correct? I have no way to know, so I just added ((not verified)) to the whole section of the AHS article. However whoever wrote these originally surely does have a source for them. So where are the online sources? — jdorje (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I got your note. Maybe we should look to see if one person added all of them. If so, he/she/it/they might have where they got it, and would be able to resolve the whole situation. Worst comes to worst, we could just ask NHC. Hurricanehink 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane best track

So last night while browsing the NHC web site I stumbled on the motherlode: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html. This has a whole host of useful data. Perhaps the most useful single entry is the easy hurdat file, which provides the whole thing in HTML format, including anchors - this can be used to link directly to hurdat sources. Also quite interesting is the US hurricane list, giving every hurricane to affect the united states - perhaps most interesting here is the gaps; it seems that 1915-1979 has not fully been re-analyzed. Next, the data-by-year provides some very interesting data although it's inconsistent; the most detailed years seem to be the oldest ones (which were most recently added), for instance 1851 lists all measurements on which the best-track is based as well as the NHC comments. — jdorje (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Shouldn't we use the template for the individual storms on the 2005 page on all the other seasons? I don't see why we havn't.Icelandic Hurricane 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about the button bar, it is in use for others. If you're talking about the table of contents, that was only because of the massive number of storms. Hurricanehink 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The thing where you put the Storm's pic and track on the main season aricle, next the each individual storm. Icelandic Hurricane 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Well, here might not be the best place to ask, mainly because Eric and I both voted no and Jdorje abstained. Just kidding, but I still don't see the need. One thing we could do instead of that is ensuring every summary of every storm lists the longevitity and peak. Hurricanehink 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tracking to do

Made a copyedit pass on Great Havana Hurricane of 1846, listed on the portal page to do list [5]. Should list be updated? DavidH 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Yea, we should probably discuss a new list here, given that not too many people worry about the portal. Here's my thoughts:

Obviously, not all will be listed. I know needs sources isn't a task, but it should be. For the expand section, I put every retired Atlantic hurricane that it is pretty bad. A current goal for the project is having every Retired Atlantic hurricane article to be at least B class, and those above are pretty bad in need of a complete makeover. We should pick 5 off the expand list for now. I vote Janet, Carla, Camille (which just needs impact), Gilbert, and Mitch. Hurricanehink 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert, Camille and Mitch should become featured eventually, as they are almost household names due to their impact/intensity, so those should get top priority. After that, I would say Iris and Dora, but those aren't really as important as the other three. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point about the "household name". I personaly think Camille should be first. Hurricanehink 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List of tropical cyclone names

Would Wikipedia have any use for a list of every tropical cyclone name ever used? I made a list of exactly this over the last few weeks, and I believe it could be benificial. This is what I have done so far. Hurricanehink 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's already an article that lists this. But yours looks better. — jdorje (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The existing article only lists the basin's names, but I thought it would make more sense to list when every name was actually used. Hurricanehink 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This list is pretty good and I can see that a lot of work went into it, but (there's always a but, isn't there?) it would need some more work to actually be an article. For example, it lumps Delores and Dolores together, but keeps Kirsten and Kristen apart; it links Michelle but not Mitch; it mentions Kendra as a TD but not Dolores (1970) and so on. On the plus side, it would be usuful in finishing disambiguation pages. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I'm only human. Nice catch, and I got those you mentioned. Though it is mostly tables, what would be required to have this be a real article? Hurricanehink 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article I was thinking of is List_of_tropical_cyclone_names_used_in_more_than_one_basin, which is a totally unnecessary list and is replaced by your list (that list is basically an incomplete, inferior version of yours). There's also Lists_of_tropical_cyclone_names which is a good article but misnamed; this article simply explains cyclone naming in the different basins and it isn't really a list at all (though it does include several lists). — jdorje (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists_of_tropical_cyclone_names should be renamed as Naming of tropical cyclones, and should probably be split up by basin: Naming of Atlantic hurricanes, etc. It can then give the history of the naming systems for each basin (enough for a full article for the Atlantic anyway) as well as the upcoming (and possibly older) lists. — jdorje (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the renaming over at the List of tropical cyclone names talk page. While we're talking here, should we put the List_of_tropical_cyclone_names_used_in_more_than_one_basin up for deletion or for merging? Like you said, the list I created sort of supersedes that page. Hurricanehink 01:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be merged, once your article is up and running. — jdorje (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So what more should I do to get it up and running? Hurricanehink 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Inflated costs

OK, the totals are conflicting for each page, it seems. Starting now, I propose one inflation calculator is used to avoid different numbers. The one I have been using, located http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ , seems to be less than others, but is, IMO, more realistic. We should have one uniform calculator so the numbers remain consistant. Does this sound fair? Hurricanehink 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem is the NHC often has their own post-inflation list. We don't want to disagree with that one. — jdorje (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, whoops. Well, I fixed Bonnie using the costliest without inflation list, but most other ones aren't on the list. How should we fix that discrepancy? Should we use the U.S. Department of Commerce Implicit Price Deflator for Construction, which is what the NHC uses? Hurricanehink 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if we can use a calculator that gives us the same numbers as the NHC, that would be good. — jdorje (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Damn, that's actually really hard. Any idea of where to start looking? I tried googling the source of where the NHC gets it, but the first ~100 pages aren't that helpful. Hurricanehink 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh. Like I said, it is a problem. Not sure what to do about it. We don't want our articles showing one thing when the NHC's costliest-hurricanes list says something else. But we also don't want different articles to conflict with each other. — jdorje (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Money conversion

Based on the table in List of retired Atlantic hurricanes I'm reviving this discussion. In that article we run up against the problem head-on: to have consistent damage comparisons we need to use a consistent inflator. But using the inflation calculator above (probably the CPI) gives, for instance, $36.4 billion for Andrew in 2004, whereas the NHC (supposedly with the GDP deflator gives $43.7 billion. Replacing Andrew's $44B with a $36B value in the Andrew article is a terrible idea. Listing $36B for Andrew in the retiree list while the Andrew article continues to say $44B is a terrible idea. And using the GDP value for Andrew while the CPI value is used for (say) Fifi is a terrible idea. Thus, we have rather a large problem.

The idea solution, seemingly, would be to use the GDP deflator for our calculations. But like Hink said this is hard. After a surprisingly large amount of searching I hit upon this site, which allows you to use different methods to estimate inflation. However, this doesn't go past 2004, and even worse none of the methods used seems to agree with what the NHC has (the site does have very good explanations of the different methods, however). So the search goes on.

Perhaps we should wonder whether using the GDP deflator is even a good idea, however. Doing so bases inflation on the rate of growth of the U.S. economy - which may be a good way to inflate U.S. hurricane damages, but is surely not a good way to inflate damages from other countries! However, using anything but the GDP deflator takes us back to the problem in the first paragraph. Using a global GDP inflator (which basically "adjusts for wealth") might be possible but would "seem to" inflate damages from third-world countries tremendously (whether this is justified is another question).

In conclusion, I see no solution to this problem.

— jdorje (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are 100% right. I emailed them to see what they use, so hopefully I'll find out soon. Hurricanehink 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Hurricanes in each state?

Well, we have the History of hurricanes in the Caribbean, List of California hurricanes, Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1900-1960 and Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present, and now Catastrophic Texas Hurricanes since 1900. This could be an interesting project; having a list of the most important hurricanes for each state. Some states might be hard (like Delaware or Rhode Island), so that could be blanketed if necessary. Here's what would be needed.

Not sure about New England. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

These could form good "top end lists" for each Hurricanes in Somewhere categories. Perhaps we could also do countries... like List of Bahamas hurricanes. Finally, we should probably all call them List of PLACENAME hurricanes so all names have a consistent pattern. Also, if a list gets too long, we can split them up like with Florida. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I was thinking that eventually about splitting it up. Good idea about the top-level categories, though it could be hard for Europe or the Canary Islands. Hurricanehink 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think New England should definetly be done. I might be able to a bit extra with that. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can dig up some stuff about Arizona tropical storms, as I'm from there... I've been focusing primarily on Nora and I'm surprised by the lack of information, so it might be hard. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll do New Jersey's. Hurricanehink 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa! Time out. Now why is this a good idea? Only three, maybe four states need articles like this: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and maybe Louisiana. The other states don't have an extensive enough hurricane history to warrent an article, especially not New Jersey. You want me to do Alaska while were at it? This is ridiculous. New Jersey? Come on. They've probably had like two hurricanes in the past 150 years. You've got to be kidding me. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for New Jersey it is quite the contrary. I plan on using the California hurricanes as a guideline, which includes many storms' remnants. Though two have made landfall in the state in fairly recent history, numerous have passed through the state, and I intend to list them and, briefly, their effects. Remember, this isn't a list of Catastrophic NJ hurricanes, this is a list of every NJ cane. Hurricanehink 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For Arizona, there is significant information that can't really go elsewhere. For example, I can't add that the state is affected by a tropical storm or its remnants every 4 years or so in Tropical cyclone or in Arizona, as it isn't information that necessarily belongs there. However, a state sub-article can be the correct place to add it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just make catagories instead of an article and create redirects, like with North Carolina? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with having it. What about notable storms that don't have articles, yet could use more mentioning in the list of ... page? The categories are there as a guide, while the list of page gives a summary to it. Hurricanehink 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential blankets for the Catastrophic series: Gulf Coast (LA/MS/AL), Carolina (NC/SC), Mid-Atlantic (VA/DE/MD/DC/PA/NJ/NY), New England. CrazyC83 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are these pages for systems that struck the area, or affected it? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say both. A hurricane can remain offshore yet cause a lot of damage. Hurricanehink 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The only states that deserve similar articles to the two on Florida that I wrote are (excluding Florida): Texas, Louisiana, and North Carolina. No other states have had enough catastrophic hurricanes to warrent such an article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For the Catastrophic hurricanes, you're right with the ones you gave. However, the other ones (California, Arizona, NJ) give every hurricane to affect the state. Hurricanehink 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Arizona hurricanes

Well, I've been adding a bit to that article, and I found an interesting fact: tropical storms strike Arizona on average every 5 years, and only about 6% of Pacific hurricanes hit the U.S. So, do you think the article is ready for WP:DYK? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job with that article! Hurricanehink 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List of New Jersey hurricanes

I need some advice for this. Excluding the table, should I continue giving the Date, Year- Summary formula for every storm? Or should every storm be in a table, with notable NJ hurricanes at the bottom? The 1944 storm has a lot of information that could be expanded upon, and it might look weird being with the rest of the storms. However, a table for every storm might be too long, especially with brief notes of its effects in it. What should be done? Hurricanehink 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I did it is that every storm goes in the table (as the effects are pretty much the same: flooding), and notable storms get mentioned at the bottom. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That works well for Arizona, but the effects can range greatly in NJ. Strong winds, surf, erosion, waves, or rainfall is possible. Would the table still work for NJ? Another problem with NJ is the length of the table. Believe it or not, a lot of storms have passed through the state, of which nearly all made landfall further south. Hurricanehink 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I put them into tables, but I'm not sure that's better. Any suggestions, anyone? Hurricanehink 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ehh, the table is way to big. I think I'm going to put it back to the way it was. Hurricanehink 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the page is done. Now, I need some help with the picture placement. See the talk page for details. Hurricanehink 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of New England hurricanes

Would it look/be better for the New England article with the table it has now, or a setup similar to List of California hurricanes? I can't decide. And plus, if the table looks best, then I'm not sure which format is best; the one on it now or the one on List of New Jersey hurricanes. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the NJ format is undecided too ;) I am in the same boat. The table can get big and bulky... I think I'm going to have the California hurricane page setup for mine. Hurricanehink 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The only reason I created the List of California hurricanes article was because hurricanes hitting there are unusual. It would be silly to create a list of all Florida tropical cyclones because tropical cyclones hit there all the time. Even the sad 1983 season managed to have one. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's also why I made NJ hurricanes. Storms here are pretty rare. Hurricanehink 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pacific typhoons

Why are there no storm pics templates on the Pacific typhoons and most of the Pacific hurricane season articles?, surely someone had uploaded some storm paths by now. Storm05 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think it is because not every season has every storm. If that happened, then I would fully support it. I really don't know, though. Hurricanehink 21:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the best-track data for wpac, nindian, and spac is terrible. The UNISYS tracks are made from a HURDAT-formatted file that the unisys people must have assembled from the advisory data (it is based on the advisory data not the best-track); this is what I've been using so far but this is obviously not good. JTWC has one-file-per-storm best-track data; I've started working on using this but it takes a lot of work. An additional problem is that there's no re-analysis for these basins that I know of, so for instance Nancy is still listed in the best-track as having 215 mph winds. — jdorje (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy

I was looking over a featured article included as part of this WikiProject and noted that it possibly isn't up to the standard of today's FA status. Should it be put up for delisted, I have a feeling it might succeed. Does anyone want to have a look at it and comment? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. That should be on the todo list. Hurricanehink 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I kindof feel the same way about the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. The content is FA-quality but it has technical problems like lack of references. — jdorje (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, are you kidding me? The Galveston article is far and away the best article on the project. It has plenty of references (28 to be exact) and is better written than any of the other hurricane articles will ever be. IMO, it should be the model for future hurricane articles. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see what is wrong with the article. Hurricanehink 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Lack of inline references it the problem. Over the last week or so a couple editors have been working to improve this - I haven't looked in on it lately. — jdorje (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions and Comments

I have suggestions and comments about the following....

Storm05 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2006

At what point to we switch over from 2005 USD to 2006 USD for units of damage? — jdorje (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

When 2006 is available... I guess. Hurricanehink 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That site used doesn't have it set for 2006 yet, so I'd stick to 2005 figures for past storms (of course, current storms in 2006 will have it at current figures). CrazyC83 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could use the GDP deflator, but that would be too much work, especially if our site gives a different result. Hurricanehink 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

wind speed inconsistency

Every article mentions "wind speed" in very many places. Infoboxes say that a storm has "XXX mph sustained" winds. But we don't clarify what exactly this means, and this is leading to problems. The NHC and (I think) JTWC use 1-minute sustained winds. However the WMO and other organizations - particularly the Australians - use 10-minute sustained winds. The two are not interchangeable and can't be converted with any certainty, a huge problem. A related problem is that the Australians have their own cyclone rating system that also goes 1-5 but has no relation to the SSS; Cyclone Tracy is actually a Category 4 on the Australian system meaning we don't know how strong it was on the SSS (probably a 3 I'd guess). All of this is discussed, in an obnoxiously long and repetitive way, at Talk:Cyclone Larry and its archives, but what I'm concerned about (and isn't discussed there) is how we should handle this in general for southern hemisphere storms. It seems to me we need to change the infoboxes to clarify whether wind speeds are 1-minute sustained or 10-minute sustained, and go through every spac article to see what needs to be fixed. It will be very tedious. — jdorje (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Need to work on the first sentence

Here's the first sentence from Hurricane Gloria, which just went to FAC and will likely become featured:

Hurricane Gloria was a powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that formed during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season that prowled the Atlantic Ocean from September 16 to September 28.

Now here's the first sentence from Hurricane Rita:

Hurricane Rita is the fourth-most-intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the most intense tropical cyclone observed in the Gulf of Mexico.

OK? Now, finally, the first sentence from Hurricane Wilma:

Hurricane Wilma was the twenty-first named storm, thirteenth hurricane, sixth major hurricane, and fourth Category 5 of the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

Which of these gives the least amount of relevant information? I would say they work in order. The first one gives the time - 1985, September; the strength, "powerful"; and the location, though it maybe could mention the eastern seaboard. However, that's handled in the next sentence.

The second one does not give a time, but it does give a reason for notability - most intense hurricane ever in the gulf.

The third one gives nothing but the time. It was in 2005, it was a category 5, it was the 21st named storm. So? Almost all of the 2005 hurricane articles are done in this fashion, and yes, while this IS useful when we first make the article, it desperately needs to be replaced with something useful. Move this trivia down to storm history, and replace it with, say:

Hurricane Wilma was a powerful hurricane that formed during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic Basin.

Or something like that. Almost anything is better than the bland and boring "21st storm, 13th hurricane," etc. Do you see my point? We need to go through all the hurricane articles and make sure that the first sentence is compelling, and not just a numbers race. I tried with Hurricane Katrina, but there are many others that suffer from this problem. --Golbez 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agreed. We should write up some criteria for lead sections to add to the main wikiproject page. Another criteria is the inclusion of links and certain information about each storm, as I listed in the #Article_intros section above. Also, this is a problem that season articles suffer from too, as every AHS article begins with the exact same intro that does not give any notable information about the season. — jdorje (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I brought this up on Rita (see my attempt to say what Golbez says here [[6]]). I rewrote that several times to get away from "storm x and hurricane y and major hurricane z of the season." I also just posted a comment on the season article discussion page about how that first sentence needs a different approach too. What I would hope editors and contributors realize is that we don't need special TC article guidelines, we need good writing, which probably doesn't mean starting each article based on a formula that emphasizes obscure data (of the kind only TC geeks could love). DavidH 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

FA examples

Hurricane Dennis was the fourth named storm, second hurricane, and first major hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

Hurricane Iniki (Hawaiian for Enid[3]) was the most powerful hurricane to strike the state of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Islands in recorded history.

Hurricane Floyd was the sixth named storm, fourth hurricane, and third major hurricane in the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season.

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on the city of Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900.

Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that devastated Darwin, Australia, from December 24 to December 25, 1974.

The Okeechobee Hurricane or Hurricane San Felipe Segundo was a deadly hurricane that struck the Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, and Florida in September of the 1928 Atlantic hurricane season.

— jdorje (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My analysis: Dennis and Floyd are the worst ones. Iniki is great. Galveston is marginal, needs to mention why we have an article on it. Tracy is great, Tracy is exactly what I want Galveston to say. Okeechobee is nice too. --Golbez 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm boxes and Damage table

There are a few recent seasons with storm infoboxes, which contain peak winds, pressure, and dates. That information should be right in the storm section, so I propose that they be removed in favor for a meteorological statistics section at the bottom.

In addition, as seen on the talk page for the 2003 season, I propose having a damage table for each storm also on each page. Claudette, for example, would list each area it affected, followed by damage, damage (2005 USD), deaths, and indirect deaths. What do you think of these 2 propositions? Hurricanehink 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season I agree with the idea. This is basically inspired by Madeline's work on 1997 Pacific hurricane season, which has been incorporated into various list articles like List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. But in addition to the textual storms list I think we should provide table forms of the meteorological and impact statistics. — jdorje (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Disaster management WikiProject

I have started a WikiProject on Disaster management. The thought is that we will maintain articles on the response, policy, and general management of hazards. It is a huge task! Please join us! --Drdan 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) I am adding the template for visibility.

WikiProject iconDisaster management Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Titles for tropical cyclones

I think the titles of tropical cyclones should only have its date if there is more then one. I think the most recent use of the said name shouldn't have a date on it's title, while it's predecessors should (i.e. Hurricane Floyd (1993), then the most recent Hurricane Floyd). When the name is reused (unless the name is retired) then the date should be put in the title (i.e. when Hurricane Epsilon is reused again, then 2005's should have it's titel renamed to Hurricane Epsilon (2005)) — HurricaneDevon @ 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Current practice (which is explained on the project page, but has never been discussed particularly) is that the most notorious storm may take the main name. However for 2005 we have a lot of articles for storms that are not notorious at all (like Zeta, Epsilon, Lee), and I don't particularly think these should take the main name. One could perhaps cite counter-examples however, such as Hurricane Alice or Hurricane Ethel (neither of which were unique; Alice wasn't even the most notorious storm of that name of 1954!!!). — jdorje (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the qualifier should be on most storms as a rule, Lee needs the qualifier as there were 3 WestPac storms, including a typhoon (I guess that is more notable than the Atlantic one). One thing which might be worth changing with these rules is an active storm gets the main name (if we go ahead with the all article thing), and once the storm is finished decide if it should stay at the main name or not; if it has a high chance of retirement I guess. --Nilfanion 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In this case, I'm mostly for consistency. The date is more helpful than not. A consensus that all TC titles should be "Name (year)" would makes maintaining and creating new articles as simple as possible. For the average person searching Wikipedia, it wouldn't hurt -- they aren't going to know if a more complex guideline is being followed, it would just seem inconsistent and possibly random. DavidH 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think that is more sensible - put a notice up on Katrina's page suggesting it. That way the 'outside' community will say-- Nilfanion 22:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. There's no need for retired storms to have a qualifier (although having Hurricane Katrina (2005) as a redirect can't hurt), and the same holds for highly-notable storms. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea, it is arbitrary - but retired storm gets own article works; and can you really see the masses preferring Hurricane Katrina (2005) to Hurricane Katrina? It may be more consistent for ALL storms to get qualifiers, but hopelessly unworkable. We would only need to qualify last years Katrina, if the concept of retirement didnt exist. Nilfanion 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The rule had been set in black and white. The main article goes to the storm that had its name retired, or to a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the first article if only one of that name has occured). A storm ONLY gets the main article if the name was retired, or is likely to be retired based on damage (in our best guess - Emily last year was a surprise and was changed back). The qualifier does not go into the name of retired names, unless absolutely necessary (if Cleo, Dora or Hilda is destructive in a future Pacific season). CrazyC83 05:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Hurricane preparedness/mitigation

On Talk:Hurricane mitigation there is a two-person discussion about whether Hurricane mitigation and Hurricane preparedness should be merged. I invite anyone to give comments there. — jdorje (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect NW Pacific data used

I've been asked to post this here. From what I can see all NW Pacific TC data is incorrect as for some reason JTWC data appears to have been used. The only offical data for the NW Pacific is produced by the JMA. The JTWC is neither a RSMC or TCWC and is not linked to by the WMO tropical cyclone warning page here. The JTWC page even says it is unoffical "JTWC products on this website are intended for use by U.S. government agencies. Please consult your national meteorological agency or the appropriate World Meteorological Organization Regional Specialized Meteorological Center for tropical cyclone products pertinent to your country, region and/or local area." Only RSMCs and TCWCs provide the official forecasts and name tropical cyclones. Also in relation to another post further up the SS scale only applies to the North Atlantic, NE Pacific, and Central Pacific. The conversion from 10 minute to 1 minute averages given by the BoM is to divide by 0.871 but it should really be left as a ten minute average as the World Meteorological Organisation standard is a ten minute average at a height of 10m. The term "super typhoon" used by the JTWC is also completely unofficial.

The JMA best track archive is here. It does appear however from looking at other articles they do correctly use Meteo-France for the SW Indian Ocean, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for that area, and the Fiji Met Service or Met Service of New Zealand for SW Pacific systems. I'm not so sure about the North Indian Ocean storms, they should use the Indian Met Department data.

Please note as TDs are not numbered by the JMA they are not included in the best track. P.K. 12:07, 17th April 2006 (GMT)

That best track appears to be exactly what I'm looking for to generate the track maps with. The format is a bit weird but I can adapt to it. Where can we find best track data for the north indian or south pacific/south indian basins? — jdorje (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The only other best track data I can find is the the Aus region (SE Indian and SW Pacific here. The format from the JMA is better than the NHC format in my view though. You can get position data from this season and last season for the SW Indian Ocean here and here. P.K. 16:21, 18th April 2006 (GMT)
The NWP data from the JTWC is only unreliable from 2000 forward, as that is when the JMA took over. Pre-2000, the JTWC was in charge of the NWP, so there are no problems there. NSLE (T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-04-18)
That isn't right. RSMC Tokoyo was set up in July 1989 as it says in all of the reports here. All tracks before that have been reanalysed and if you look at them they do differ to the JTWC ones, but the RSMC Tokoyo ones will be the official ones. P.K. 16:21, 18th April 2006 (GMT)

WMO Final Reports

I was looking on the WMO Tropical Cyclone page and found this page here [7]. It contains versions of the WMO session reports on the 2002-2004 Hurricane seasons, and some of the other regions too. Much of the massive reports contain stuff we already know, however I noticed one very useful thing: The reports submitted by the various countries are included within them. This gives information on an area which has a serious lack of it - non-US impacts. For instance I found "Hurricane Jeanne caused $270 million damages in the Dominican Republic, 1.7% of the GDP" - there is no mention of damages in the Dominican Republic in its article. There are potentially useful images in there as well, but I don't know about the copyright issues. A proper examination of these could well improve all 2002-2004 articles. Good Spanish skills will help, with Cuba for instance.... --Nilfanion

Categories