Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.75.157.201 (talk) at 01:59, 20 October 2008 (→Can you tell me what I am seeing here?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

I just created this wikiproject, after several months of contemplating doing so. I hope everyone working on hurricane articles will get involved. I went ahead and wrote a bunch of guidelines, basically based on current practices...naturally since this is something I just wrote it doesn't necessarily represent community consensus and needs to be discussed. That discussion should probably go here for now...although eventually we may make these pages a little more structured. For a general TODO list, see the "tasks" item on the project page. Jdorje 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion

  • 11 Dec 2024 – Template:WPTC AC (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Jonesey95 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(1 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Articles to be merged

Articles for creation

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
| 49 | 50

Task forces

→ Western Pacific task force (talk)
→ Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
→ Atlantic task force (talk)
→ North Indian Ocean task force (talk)
→ Southern Hemisphere task force (talk)
→ Graphics task force (talk)
→ 2018 FT task force (talk)
→ Weather of YYYY task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Cyclone Cup (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Showcase (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Awards (talk)

Assessment

Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

Parent project

WikiProject Weather (talk)

Warnings template

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

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

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

Article importance

I'll quote Titoxd. We have to upgrade that scale to reflect project-only importance instead of Wikipedia-wide importance, because WP:v0.7 will be bot-selected. I agree with him. We need to think of importance as if we were only a weather encyclopedia, not just part of a larger, amazing encyclopedia. For example, all retired storms would either be high or top, with top being reserved for (soft-limit) the 100 most important hurricane topics we have. Someone on the WPTC IRC brought up a Very-low importance class. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the season articles we need to upgrade the importance scale but we need to do it on a Basin by Basin as we found its hard to distingish one basin from another Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that we need to reassess our importance ratings. However, a new importance class would just add more process, IMO; there won't be enough difference from Low-importance, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing importance across basin, across era, and across article type is incredibly complicated and is inevitably going to lead to contradictions and make people unhappy. If you consider JUST the 2007 season for a moment, one might make the distinction:

  • Low - storms not impacting land that aren't otherwise notable. Examples: Ingrid, Jerry, Karen, Melissa
  • Medium - storms that had low impact that someone somewhere might care about. Maybe they even killed someone or did some damage. Examples: Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Erin (could be high), Gabrielle, Humberto, Lorenzo, Ten
  • High - storms with a significant effect on land, doing significant damage or killing a reasonable number of people. Examples: Noel, Olga (could be medium)
  • Top - storms doing catastrophic damage or killing many people. Examples: Dean, Felix (could be medium).

Even looking at this one season with this criteria - and ignoring meteorological notability - is surely going to start making people upset. The problem is we have so many articles on truly "low" importance storms now that any storm striking land has to be of higher importance than that, IMO; you can't lump a storm that killed 10 people in the same category with one that lasted for 6 hours and affected nobody. Yet that leaves only high and top classifications for truly damaging storms. Honestly there would be nothing wrong with a system like this, except that the distribution of articles would be far different than what we have now (and in the Atlantic there might be more medium than low-importance storm articles). When you compare to season articles (still considering only the Atlantic), it would mean even the least notable seasons would still be at the high end of medium, with at least half of season articles given high/top importance (2007 would probably be High I'd think, but close to Top). Look at sub-articles and Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico at Mid-importance is probably okay, though many effects articles would still be high-importance and basically none would ever be Low by definition. Get to other basins and the distribution for seasons is similar but most basins would have a lot more low-importance storms (which do not at present generally get articles). Almost all meteorology articles would end up being top-importance. The 2004 season would probably have 5 top-importance articles, with the 2005 season having at least 4. Again, if you consider this to be importance 'within the wikiproject, having a large number of top- and high-importance articles, while most potential low-importance articles remain unwritten (at least for now) could make sense.

— jdorje (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulated Cyclone Energy

There's pretty much a consensus not to have them for each individual storm, but they are still there. Should we get rid of the individual tables, and instead add a season total ACE for the season infobox? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah lets get rid of the tables - Theres already a bit for the total ace on the main Hurricane infobox Jason Rees (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way. ACE is generally useless, but if we were to remove the tables from the season articles, one could argue that doing such would compromise the comprehensiveness of a page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the season table. What is the argument against it? Plasticup T/C 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only independent source (i.e. one that doesn't specifically study ACE) that places importance on ACE is wikipedia. Objectively speaking, it's not a notable statistic, and I don't understand why we have a table of that when we don't include tables of storm duration, strength, IKE, or whatever else. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section in the season articles, and removing it completely would not weaken them at all. — jdorje (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My strongest objection to those tables is that they're basically original synthesis, as they're usually not referenced, nor kept up to date with official records. Most NCDC season reports have ACE stats that differ from ours, and I'd feel more comfortable either citing their numbers, or not adding those numbers at all. (Although I realize that they're good content to fill old season articles, which lack information lost to time...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for EPAC storms

Do you think its is time to do articles for EVERY storm in the EPAC. 2006 has a bunch now and 2007 has several.

2 things: A article for Norbert is coming. A article for Five-E is coming.

Also, I have several request on the Article request

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO - The only ones to get articles are ones that make landfall OR are Basin crossers that make it from the EPAC to the WPAC Jason Rees (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every storm can get an article; that theory is backed up by the dozens of fishspinners that have recently received articles, many of which are of good quality. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erick is a good example. Jiliancolton you did a good job there. Bud is the only bad one. Dilia is OK. I am surprised that none has done an article for Nora.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bud is the only bad one. All there rest will soon be GA's.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have proven that fish-spinners can support articles, so we should allow them to have articles. There is no reason not to. Plasticup T/C 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the article sucks. In that case, we shouldn't have an article, and we're better off with a small, coherent section in the season article than a bunch of rambling crap in the storm article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok maybe we should take it on a case by case basis as i think there could be a few "Fish spinners" within the WPAC that could get articles Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the threshold should be whether there is a decent article. There is no sense in creating nonsense pages on every storm, but if someone sits down and writes a reasonable article on a fish spinner, I think it should be allowed to stay. Plasticup T/C 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we merge Bud?--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Even, we've merged plenty of your articles, but you've reverted numerous times. And now you're in favor of merging articles that other people create? I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is/was a discussion on article creation guidelines. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to merge Lowell because no one is letting me expand it. Bud is the worst article I ever seen.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to merge Lowell because no one is letting me expand it. Bud is the worst article I ever seen.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


** Since 2005, this has basically been de facto policy

  • It is a named storm that doesn't make landfall, but has significant impacts on inhabited land (basically Mexico and the US)
    • This covers things such as impact due to heavy rain or strong waves, and Hawaii landfalls are rare
  • It is retired for any reason. Example Hurricane Adolph (2001). It also dose not need the year. Adolph (2001) should be Adolph

** The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one

** The exclusion of remnants is intended to make it clear that this suggestion does not mean it's necessary to have an article on, say, 2001's Manuel

    • If it is a depression that makes landfall and produces heave rain or winds above 44 mph. They should be an article for TD 2-E (1976)
    • If it is the strongest storm of the season (or makes the top three). Example Hurricane Hernan (2008)
    • Any storm thats impacts the US or Central America (because Central America is rare). Example Tropical Storm Norma (1970).
    • Peak winds are above 150 mph.

An off- season storm or a storm that reaches a unusual latitude or longitude. Example Hurricane Fausto (2002) and Tropical Storm Wene (2000).


These should be the Guidlines.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no room to call Bud the worst article you've ever seen, and doing so after creating so many poor articles yourself is of very bad taste. Now, back on-topic, who's not letting you expand Lowell? We just don't want you spamming it with thousands of kb of irrelevant information, as you have done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the impact I try keeps on getting dealted. They say it for Ike not Lowell. I say its for all these.

Iowa flood of 2008

Tropical Strom Lowell (2008)

Hurricane Ike

2008 Midwest floods

Please try to write coherently, here and in your articles. I have no idea what you are saying nor why you posted a huge amount of struck-out text. Are you just spamming this page or what? Plasticup T/C 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would require many new pages.

This should be first on the list for new articles:

Tropical Storm Boris (2002)

Hurricane Madline (1976)

Hurricane Cosme (1989)

Hurricane Jova (2005)

Hurricane Fausto (1996)

Tropical Storm Wene (2000)

Tropical Storm Upana (2000)

Hurricane Daniel (2000)

Hurricane Virgil (1992)

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed spelling, please try to fix your mistakes. --Rose09 Rashmi Next 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, what are you trying to say? What is your contribution to this discussion? I don't understand. Plasticup T/C 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That we should make the article policies clear. My suggestions are above. The list of storms are the other member of the Procet should make. i am taking care of this list.

Leave Message orYellow Evan home 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, don't you dare create all of those articles. It is bad enough when you spam the encyclopedia with two or three pages of nonsense. We don't have the time to clear up 25 pages of it. Write one article properly, then we can talk about moving on to others. Plasticup T/C 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to work on Kika of 08 and Katrina of 67 so please take that into mind.

--Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And Hali and Ele

--Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Iselle and 05E in production right now. I'm hoping to get 05E out within a day or two, and Iselle a day after that. They're both in sandbox pages that are accessible from my userpage. I do agree that we don't need articles for every eastern pacific storm. Same goes for the Atlantic but we do it anyways right? I think that we shouldn't discourage the creation of the EPac articles but should be well written before being put out in the mainspace. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted I'll be busy until about 1800 UTC on October 17, but I'll see what I can do about Tina. And possibly Tara as well, once I find good sources. Dylan620 Life story 01:05 UTC October 16, 2008

NHC breakpoints

I am taking the list of NHC breakpoints and arranging them into a table. Then I am going to make sure that every city/town/hamlet on the list has an article, which should remove a lot of redlinks from our TC articles. Join in, there's enough for everyone! Plasticup T/C 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epac Guidelines

I have an idea for the guidelines:

class="wikitable "

Now with a few edits this could be good any suggestions... if not I would request a poll for it. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a category 2 fish storm in the Pacific can't have an article but a 12 hour tropical storm in the middle of the Atlantic can? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also we would need the season article from January 1 not March 15 in case of any Zita's (ie Year Crossovers) and any Pre season storms Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced, every named storm can get an article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jason... thats what I meant.... Julian... I agree... - added your "suggestion".... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do we create a poll for it? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a poll. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing - Wikipedia:SPINOUT. All storm articles are split from season or basin articles. They summary sections should be completely developed in the season article - preferably before the storm article is created.Potapych (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the Guild lines I put.v These are more correct and better. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow... there aload of rubbish. What do we think then? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is not rubbish one bit. To test try to write up Tropical Storm Dillia (1995)Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dillia isn't even the name of a storm.Potapych (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully i would agree with LTFC on your guidlines as they are unclear. Also i suppourt LTFCs guidlines as they look pretty decent, and with a little bit of rewording they can be rolled out worldwide. (eg: Season articles should be made 2 Months before the TC Year starts (ie: November & May)) Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potapych - he meant Dalila from 1995 and.... Only one source there... so it would not require a article. However Hurricane Barbara from 1995 requires one. As it was a major hurricane and I count 4 sources on the main season page. Jason - thanks, although I'm not sure about the re-wording, I can see the Hurricane is active and a major hurricane's description changed to this "Create if there are enough sources - Not 1, even the White House requires 3 sources before claiming anything." Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fishspinners can supotr articles. It is simple.

Only if the article is fully referenced and comprehensive to some extent. A poor article is going to be merged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Then acrrording to the standers this is what we do.

class="wikitable " Leave Message orYellow Evan home

I am strongly against any set it stone guidelines. If someone writes a really great article on a storm, but it gets put on AFD because it goes against some "guideline", then that is rediculous. I'm fine with general guidelines, but not "tropical storm lasting more than 72 hours but less than 144 that formed on a Tuesday in a leap year must be deleted" guidelines. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are general Guidlines.... also.... it don't have to be rare.... the guidlines say "Only if major damage,deaths or retirement occurs OR if it can cite 3 sources." And BTW I would mind if Yellow Evan is kept out of this discussion. He just spammed my talk page..... ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the guidelines somewhat.... there abit more relaxed. ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why cannot we do articles for EVERY storm. Whats wrong with that and what to hear nonsense. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not enough information on each and evrey storm - For example take Tropical Disturbance 10F off 2006-07 - There is not going to be an article because it was a very short lived system also we did not even monitor it at the time. Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do not think so look at Tropical Storm Erick (2007)Leave Message orYellow Evan home
Yes there is enough infomation on Erick to justify an article but there is just not enough information on Tropical disturbance 10F of 2006-07 or Tropical Depression Gener to justify an article. Jason Rees (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try to write an EPAC fishspinner here.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been difficult to follow per the significant typos/grammar/indentation issues with some of the responses, so I'll just give you all my opinion and what our project's history has been on this topic. This discussion appears to be a rehash of a discussion that occurred in the project back in 2005 and 2006 when people started writing articles on every storm in the Atlantic Basin. Some of the most active/productive members were initially opposed to this, particularly the fish storms (older slang for your fishspinner terminology) but once people produced decent articles on these systems, the discussion generally melted away. Personally, I think C class is too harsh...Start class is more appropriate at first if someone wants to create an article on a system. If you all want to fix the stub problem within the project, consider merging the content of the stub storm articles back into the season articles and replace them with redirects, as long as they were not important cyclones (i.e., retired for meteorological purposes.) If the stubs ARE the season articles, then expand them out. The season articles for all basins are begging for attention, for those looking for something to do. By the way, I don't think it's a good idea for have different criteria in the different basins...that could be interpreted as POV. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof

How long is it going to be until I actually create a storm article? First Fausto, and now Norbert, and Yellow Evan beat me to both. I'm very interested in tropical cyclones, don't get me wrong, but if I'm going to be beaten to every storm article I plan, I don't see what my purpose in this project is. Hurricanehink, an administrator, has complimented me on my writing. I'd probably be a great help to the project if someone would actually let me. Dylan620 Life story 18:58 UTC October 8, 2008

No one owns the articles. Any article could be improved in some way. Just because you didn't start them doesn't mean you can't make them great. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You don't need to be the one to create an article to contribute to this project. You can write more complex/complete content than the one already there; for example Tropical Storm Marco (2008) needs more in the storm history section. -- RattleMan 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan: Since we have started to fall behind with the 2008 PTS again so if you wanted you could help out there also if you just put a note on the season talk page saying that you have a sandbox article started on the perticular storm then people should respect it and not do an article. Jason Rees

It is a real shame that Yellow Evan keeps creating awful messes (which I hesitate to call "articles"), especially when it is preventing talented writers like Dylan620 from creating them. Something has to be done. Plasticup T/C 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now. No personal attacks. We've shed some good and/or productive people from this project due to personal attacks over the years. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I can't think of a single storm article I've created. Okay I don't know what that point is supposed to mean...but I don't think I'm useless :). Dylan, why don't you try to fix Hurricane Janet, that storm needs some love. — jdorje (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Even though it's been redirected now, I created the Tropical Storm Odile (2008) article. Yellow Evan has given me some ideas for articles (Hurricane Jova (2005), Hurricane Boris (1996), Tropical Storm Andres (1997), and Hurricane Fausto (1996)), and I do accept the suggestions I have received from Jdorje, Jason Rees, RattleMan, Plasticup, and Titoxd. I have a plan: leave Rene in the Atlantic to me, once he pops up (which is likely, considering the 'P' storm is imminent when we're halfway through October). I'll try my best to pump out a decent article, at least B-class or GA-class (a suitable goal for a Wikipedian new as me). I also have a few disambiguation pages in stock; contact me on my talk page if you think my disambiguation page for tropical cyclones named Percy is ready. I'll use as much free time as I can to edit, and improve, any article I find needs improvement, and in any way I can. Dylan620 Life story 21:39 UTC October 14, 2008

Okay, since TD Sixteen is unlikely to become a tropical storm now, leave the next storm in the Atlantic (presumably Paloma) to me; since when did tropical depressions become named storms over land, especially over extremely mountainous countries like Honduras? Oh, and I still promise to try to make a decent (B-class or GA-class) article, no matter how notable or non-notable Paloma is (an exception, though, will be if Paloma is a powerful hurricane heading my way; I'll probably spend more time evacuating than contributing to the article). Lounge with Dylan620 today! 00:56 UTC October 16, 2008

Help!

Could someone delete the redirect for 1966 Pacific hurricane season? --Rose09 Rashmi Next 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create an article under that name, just edit this. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009

I am starting sandboxes that will be published in April '09!

and

feel free to edit, But Someone better not move to mainspace until April, got it!

Sorry, just had to do that. --Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Things
  • Dont forget the NIO
  • The 2009 NIO & PTS will be required January 1 so i would move them some time in December
  • I will also help you write them

Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we talking about the 2009 season already? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because the 2009 WPAC and NIO seasons kick off in about 75 days time Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are fine, but the Atl and EPac seasons are quite a while off yet... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Info would be needed December 9.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait until April. WPac season starts on Jan 1 plus you have seasonal forcasts for the Atlantic come out in December. The article could be created now for all I care. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Pacific typhoon season

Last night, when I made some actualizations to the german version of the article I realized how much this article ist a mess. Pitifully we won't find a solution for the confusion with all the uprading and downgrading of storms in that basin since JMA, PAGASA and JTWC all are cooking there own soup and we need at least Tokyo and Honululu concurring to each other because of the RSMC datum (and scale) is the offical source to work with but the JTWC is needed to "rate" the storms according to the SSHS. Aaarg! However, please could one of the experts look over that article. In the following I list some of the flaws:

  • many sections are dealing with statements like The next day as Sinlaku moved towards Japan it weakened into a Severe Tropical Storm and exited PAGASA's area of responsibility whilst the JTWC did not downgrade Sinlaku to a tropical storm until late on September 15. By then they were followed by the JMA which downgraded Sinlaku to a tropical storm early the next day. On September 16 the JTWC reported that Sinlaku had restrengthened into a Typhoon whilst the JMA reported that Sinlaku had strengthened into a Severe Tropical Storm. However the JTWC Quickly downgraded Sinlaku back down in to a Tropical Storm whilst the JMA kept Sinlaku at Severe tropical Storm strength. Sorry, for dummies this is a terrible read. This example is from the section on Sinlaku – on some points of the text even a reader who knows about the confusing situation doesn't know which category the storm actually belonged to at that time. ;-)
  • another bad section is about Hagupit – that storm formed somewhere near Guam and dissipated two weeks later over land, thus late on September 24 JTWC issued its final advisory on the system followed by JMA early the next day – Hagupit had to travel some miles distance between Guam and PAGASA's area in which that storm dissipated over land – but let me ask, over which island of the Philippine archiple that storm dissipated actually and whích route it took during the twelve days of existence while on the way.
  • we distinguish official and inofficial storms in this bassin. Actually we are near on WP:NOR when we use ACEs and SSHS in this bassin – XY was a category 3 typhoon – where's the source to do so? I've read two or three of the latest annual meetings of the WMO's Typhoon Commitee and I saw somewhere the statement that the WMO is aware of the confusion in this bassin and calling on its members to figure out a solution. Until then we have to establish a guideline what to do with those confusing data concerning storm intensities as announced by JMA, JTWC, and PAGASA. Actually here we also have a WP:NPOV problem.
  • another problem I am encountering frequently is the using of news.yahoo.com and its counterpart at google.com – yahoo's links are gone within 30 days and Google news doesn't keep 'em longer than 60 days. Many statements in tropical cyclone related articles (and many other articles which are in the news) don't have valid links because of the editor who used the source didn't know about that problem and/or din't care on it and/or didn't know that webarchive or webcitation.org might be his friend.
  • in many instances references are not cited by using the cite web/news/journal ... templates but we see refs like <ref>ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2008090912.RJTD</ref>. (Actually I corrected a zillion of those in last year's typhoon season's article but that problem's like a hydra...). That and the use of not-stable sources is a big big problem for this project (and many other articles dealing with real time developments). It is a good thing to use webcitation.org, but is not good if the link is formatted as <ref>http://www.webcitation.org/541asd.html</ref>.

If this place was within my "home-wikipedia" I would try to improve that but first of all my English's too bad. However I didn't adress the issues on the article's talk page since it is an issue for most of the non-hurricane tropical cyclone bassins and is seen in other years as well.

Well I think that was enough stuff for the moment. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yep it is poorly written at the minute.
  2. I Personally would say any wind speed reference to PAGASA needs to go as they are a NMHS and we dont use NMHS Data unless its JMA or they have a depression that they only monitor (e.g. Gener 08).
  3. References - they need to be in CITEWEB and in the SHEM this year i will be trying to get all the references in to Cite Web as we go.
  4. Offical and Unoffical Storms section - This Happens on all the articles post 2000. - I dont acctully see the need for it esspecially as these other storms are monitored by JMA as depressions.
  5. We are far from NOR on the SSHS as the JTWC uses 1-min winds which is what the SSHS uses.
  6. ACE is borderline orignal research in this basin - as the source we have for it (Digtal Typhoon) uses Operational Data for the ace.
  7. I havent seen any google or yahoo refs on the season article yet though i suspect its in the articles Jason Rees (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A project

If I get time, I'll try to work on this. If anyone's interested in working on it too, 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season has TONS of information available now. There's lots of interest in some of the related articles (Gonus, Sidr, Yemyin, Akash). This would make a good featured topic.Potapych (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Review

Admins - please don't kill me for this... but lately the quality of articles written by editors has well... dropped. What I think the project needs is a User Review. It would be based on a 3 strike system. Every month we nominate someone to review all users edits that involve WPTC. If they are not so good... or they have been vandalizing ET AL... they get 1 strike.... each year it would be checked. After a year the strikes get (sorry for the pun) "struck" off. However if anyone does really bad work and is awful. They get 2 strikes - they would wear off after 2 years. Anyone agree? Comments? Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 0 Oppose: 2 Neutral: 0 Comments: 2

Comments

Any ideas or agreeals? Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is the proposal in a nutshell? I don't understand most of the above text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - This would discourage particpants & we have enough problems trying to keep up to date evreywhere outside the atlantic Jason Rees (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no reason to discourage people who want to contribute. Either help them with their writing, or correct their errors. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max and Otis (2005) up for GA

These articles need some serious editing/improvement to get to GA, especially Otis. I only had the heart to write the GA review for Otis, which was a difficult review, since so much improvement was needed. I did what I could to bring Max up to C class today. So much is needed to be improved within a week that I fear Otis won't reach GA. Max, on the other hand, has some promise. To all in the project, please review the GA criteria carefully before submitting articles for GA. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask someone else to rewie a GA.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by rewie? You mean a review, rewrite, or improve the articles to GA for you? As the person who proposed them, it is primarily up to you to improve them yourself. I was being helpful with Max, so now I can't review it since I've been significantly involved in the editing process. Someone else will get to it...I've found that articles up for GA are reviewed a bit quicker than they were a few months ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

importance for EPAC storms

Why does every EPAC storm with an article get low importance? It happened with Ekeka, Alma, Boris, and Lowell. That is more rare than Tropical Storm Zeta. Alma was a crossover. Boris caused heavy rain well inland. Same with Lowell. kathleen really should be Top to someone that lives in that area.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All eastern Pacific storms shouldn't be low importance. Storms which fit land like Alma, Boris, and Lowell should probably be mid class. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually change the whole ratings system. Mid class is filled with retired storms and storms with far larger impacts than any of those. Alma, Boris, and Lowell are not memorable. Since most EPAC storms move away from land, there will be few important articles from that basin. I think keeping most at low importance is reasonable. I guarantee those articles will be maintained as much as Hurricane Adrian (2005) which has been sitting with that tag for years.Potapych (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about Ekeka. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know offhand. I know its intensity for January was unusual for a northern hemisphere basin. Low or mid. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are the guidelines

Low - storms not impacting land that aren't otherwise notable. Examples: Ingrid, Jerry, Karen, Melissa Medium - storms that had low impact that someone somewhere might care about. Maybe they even killed someone or did some damage. Examples: Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Erin (could be high), Gabrielle, Humberto, Lorenzo, Ten High - storms with a significant effect on land, doing significant damage or killing a reasonable number of people. Examples: Noel, Olga (could be medium) Top - storms doing catastrophic damage or killing many people. Examples: Dean, Felix (could be medium). Alma Mid. Boris Low High Lowell. Top Kathleen. Mid Ekeka.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what I am seeing here?

In visible satellite imagery at 36N, 47W at 15:45 UTC October 19. Looks like a small annular hurricane to me. Screenshot included. Plasticup T/C 23:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant low of Tropical Storm Omar. -Ramisses (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool. I've been away for a little while and I didn't know Omar made it all the way up there. Pretty well formed for 36 North! 71.75.157.201 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&oldid=246413919"