Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chacor (talk | contribs)
13,600 edits
Chacor (talk | contribs)
13,600 edits
Line 140: Line 140:


:Not usable.
:Not usable.
<blockquote>Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
:<blockquote>Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency<br/>
JAXA/EORC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.</blockquote>
JAXA/EORC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.</blockquote>
:&ndash; [[User:Chacor|Ch]][[User talk:Chacor|acor]] 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:&ndash; [[User:Chacor|Ch]][[User talk:Chacor|acor]] 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:37, 7 December 2006

Shortcut

Good article nominees

(10 more...)

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(1 more...)

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)

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]

FA flood

So, reading the thousand discussions surrounding User:Danny's thoughts about the next goal for Wikipedia, including Danny's contest and 100,000 FAs, there seems to be a call to find all the FA-quality articles we can find, and make them FAs. We have a lot of hurricane articles that are close, or at, FA quality, yet that don't have the flag. For example, we have 35+ GAs, and we can easily make half of those FAs. So, the question is, with the current climate that begs to identify all high-quality content, do we want to flood FA with a ton of hurricane articles? (Not all simultaneously, but sending all that we can over a period of time.) We can also try sourcing Tropical cyclone, and submit it to WP:DC... Titoxd(?!?) 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, flooding by tropical cyclone articles. Ironic :) That's a good idea. I'll start with the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, which I recently finished redoing. link. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that the only issue is to define what makes a list and what makes an article... as well at the ACE table, which I imagine must be somewhere. But that is a different story... which other articles are ready to go to the chopping block soon? Titoxd(?!?) 22:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding... Titoxd(?!?) 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)? That should be a FA. Same with Hurricane Georges. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and i think we can make Hurricane Edouard (1996) an FA. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Let's wait until 1933AHS passes and then let's send the other ones in. Titoxd(?!?) 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next closest one is Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004), given that it has all sections (SH, preps, impact, aftermath), as well as an impact pic and some storm pics. Should this be on the assessment page or here, BTW? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, in the assessment page, but now that we're here, perhaps Bonnie should be next, after Fabian/Gustav/Katrina history are done. Titoxd(?!?) 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. I know this is far in the future, but what about Tropical Storm Bill (2003)? I just finished that, and now it's extremely comprehensive and long. Could you give it a look over (needs a copyedit I'll bet, which you are great at). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We're just going to need two lists soon: an FA queue, and a list of articles I have to look at... Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, so true. Actually, I was thinking we should have two FAC's at the most (3 is a bit too much). One would be the big impact/lots of info storm article, while the other is the lesser impact one that comprehensive with not terribly much info (like fish storms and low-impact storms). Should we make an actual FA queue, primarily for the lesser impact storms? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we get any articles within this portion of the project to A or FA, check to see if the pages have a box mentioning/including them into the meteorology/weather events project. I did a quick search of a couple of the grades (FA and A) which only showed 3 meteorology articles reaching those two levels before I threw in a meteorology box on top of the Katrina article. It does not appear that the tropical cyclone project articles get included in meteorology automatically, and they clearly appear to be within the scope of that project as well. Just an FYI. Thegreatdr 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I put Tropical Storm Bill (2003) up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie? Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and that makes us three, meeting the rule of thumb we used to use... go ahead and nom it. Titoxd(?!?) 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone else nominate it? I'm pretty busy lately, and I'm not sure if I could adequately handle the FAC nom. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that, working on it. Titoxd(?!?) 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On FAC now. Titoxd(?!?) 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The only problem I can forsee is the South Carolina tornado damage, which is listed as fair use. I'm not sure if that is an adequate fair use rationale, and it could still be public domain due to being from NWS website. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Something found on an NWS website does not mean it was taken by an employee of the government as part of their duties. NWS does often use photos from private individuals, we should never assume that NWS site = public domain. – Chacor 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said it could. We don't know who took the picture. It could have been a NWS employee, for all we know. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, when it comes to images, the best way to approach images is to assume works are copyrighted unless proven otherwise. It's not safe to assume that it was an NWS employee who took it unless explicitly stated... in fact there have been deletions of some images on commons for that very thing - private images used by the NOAA that Storm05 uploaded under PD-NOAA. – Chacor 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Henri (03)? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Any other suggestions? Titoxd(?!?) 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. How about some more effort to bring, um, tropical cyclone to FA? There has been some effort lately...it would be nice to have as many people in the project as possible to bring the centerpiece article up to FA. Personally, I'd consider it embarrassing to have the main article brought to FA last. Thegreatdr 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're preaching to the choir here... ;) Although that is indeed correct. Tropical cyclone is far advanced, but there is still a little bit of work left. At the same time, there are a few articles which have been ready for quite a long time, and that essentially can occupy the slot on FAC while we're busy fixing the flagship article until it is ready and in FAC condition. Titoxd(?!?) 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Tip. I see his name a lot, but he has a very short article. Good kitty 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes nothing. I put Henri up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It would be a lot easier if someone went into all the GA-class articles and decided which could be inched up to A-class. (I am biased in some of them, and also I will generally not upgrade to A-class unless it is at (or will be at) FAC or if there is supporting opinions) CrazyC83 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I've done a lot of work to about half of them. That said, I'll update the assessment page with the remaining GA's. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg

Would this pic have any chance being a Featured Pic. I think it may need a little brightening, but other than that, is amazing. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a tiny little bit grainy, but otherwise it shows New Orleans flooded very clearly... typhoonchaser 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is balanced by the "historical importance" part of WP:WIAFP, so it could have a chance... Titoxd(?!?) 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hope if you ask me. The quality is bad enough that it needs the historical offset: this image of flooded NOLA isn't the only one (and IIRC isn't the most famous one), so the historical value isn't really there IMO. A more serious problem is the image doesn't have a proper source! The description is "AP Photo/US Coastguard". It is tagged as PD-USGov, but the sourcing is to a couple news sites: one of which is 404'ed. The original image should be on a US Govt site somewhere and could well be at a higher resolution/quality (which could make the FPC viable).--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys help out with GA nominees?

There are quite a few articles related to this project at the Wikipedia:Good article candidates. It doesn't require any credentials to review articles for GA as long as you are careful to follow the instructions written on that page, and to follow the Good article criterias. You would also help out us reviewers, it is sometimes difficult for us to assess NPOV and coverage of those kind of articles.

Fred-Chess 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not like everyone knows about the subject of the article. Passing TD9 (2003) was my first GA passing.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One main reason is that a lot of us feel a potential conflict of interest in passing something related to the project. In the past it has come up, and no real agreement was reached as to whether or not WPTC members should be passing WPTC articles (Failing, though, is a whole different ball game, because that usually means it's really not good enough). – Chacor 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would trust your guys' opinions more. I find it more likely that an article would be passed that contained major lack of needed information (that we just didn't know was needed) than one of you trying to glorify the project by passing them easily. Besides, they can always be caught latter and delisted. GA is a casual procedure and no big deal. --SeizureDog 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers cannot be heavily involved with writing the articles though...it is one thing to be involved in the project, but another to be writing the articles a lot (and putting them up). Yes, there is a backlog - and some articles have even bypassed that by going straight from B to A class - and ultimately FA - without even going GA (see Hurricane Fabian and Hurricane Edith (1971) for example). CrazyC83 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd help, but seeing as half of them were nominated by me I might be a little biased. That said, I did review one or two I did nothing for. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Anyone want to try to get a Featured topic out of the WPTC? We have some options, all of which will take some time. Here's some ideas I had.

  • Retired Pacific hurricanes- Out of the 7 retired Pacific hurricanes, one is an FA (Iniki), one is a GAN (Ismael), and the rest shouldn't be too hard, excluding Fefa and Fico. A List of retired Pacific hurricanes article would have to be created, as well
  • List of retired Atlantic hurricanes- This one will be difficult. It has the most important storms, and of the 68 names there are still a lot that need a lot of work on. Seven are FA's (Gloria, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Fabian, Dennis, and Katrina), eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Keith, Charley, and Ivan), and four are stubs (Edna, Janet, Gracie, and Flora).
  • Billion dollar U.S. hurricanes (2005 inflated)- With 42 of them, this one might be a little hard, but at least there is plenty of information on them. Included are billion dollar retired Atlantic hurricanes from above, Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Juan (85), TS Leslie (00), and TS Claudette (79). Seven are FA's (Gloria, Iniki, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Dennis, and Katrina), Eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Leslie (00), Charley, and Ivan), and there are no stubs
  • The most powerful tropical cyclones by area of development or impact- There's eight of them; Inigo, Ioke, Linda, Wilma, Cyclone 5B, Gafilo, Zoe, and Tip. This one might be a little difficult. None are FA's, only Linda is a GA, and Cyclone Inigo would have to be created.
  • 2003 Atlantic hurricane season articles- I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a featured topic, but this would be extremely easy. All articles except for Isabel and Juan are GA's or above (including 3 FA's), and the season is a GA.
  • 2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles- Similar to the above, though more work is needed. 8 articles are still starts (including Rita, Stan, and Wilma, all retired), though 3 storm articles are FA's (with the main article and the list of article being featured), and 12 are GA's.

Any thoughts? Anyone interested in trying for one of those or a different featured topic? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say 2003AHS is the easiest to work on, and should perhaps be the trial nomination. After all, improving the hurricane season itself isn't that difficult when the storm articles are already developed considerably. Titoxd(?!?) 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, EPAC retired canes would be pretty easy, which is why I mentioned it (it took 10 minutes to think of 2003 AHS). You're right though; unless we find out whether they were retired for damage, it might be difficult. The biggest problem with 2005 is that it needs major redoing/expanding for three articles. Once I finish Isabel and Juan for 2003 AHS, I'll FT it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2003-05 AHS's are the obvious choices at this stage. Season's are the obvious topic choice, though any list is viable.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another I thought of, although it will take considerable work and several more articles, is 1995 Atlantic hurricane season being a very memorable year (although overshadowed by the insanity of 2005). CrazyC83 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but you're right, it will take considerable work. The best quality article in the season is Felix as a GA, which still could use some more work done to it. The four retired hurricane articles all need a ton of work (Opal especially), and the rest of the articles would have to be made (ideally). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee hee

Well... apparently, we're overloading WP:FA. That's... always good, isn't it? :D Titoxd(?!?) 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny :) Well, they wanna split us with meteorology, so we're gonna have to overload them even more if we want to be our own category :D Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the one on WP:VPM a little while back: "What is with Wikipedia and hurricane articles?". As for FA they've noticed the problem that GA had a while back, lets get GA to split us into our own cat first. No wait, we don't want any Hurricane GA's do we? They should all be FAs...--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting new feature

As reported on the Signpost, the MediaWiki devs have developed a new feature that allows us to create "sortable" tables. An example use for this new capability is shown in the List of Arizona hurricanes here (scroll down to the table and click on the arrows). What do you guys think about this? Titoxd(?!?) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool! I like that. I can't think of a lot of articles that could benifit from it, but it's still a cool feature. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo, I can think of some ways to use it. Explanations can wait.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios in articles

When re-writing Typhoon Shanshan (2006), I noticed that a good chunk of the original article's impact section had been copied verbatim from news sources. This is clearly copyright violation, and we probably should check Storm05's other articles for possible copyvios. – Chacor 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember some other authors had this problem in the past, as well. Curious, do you have a copy of the text and where it was taken verbatim from? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Last paragraph. The moment you see "Saturday" in the text alarm bells should ring. Copied from here and various other sources. Re-arranging the copied text to insert them at different places isn't enough. Compare: "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police" v.s. "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police". – Chacor 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I'm surprised about that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A plea concerning the extratropical cyclone articles

I've been fairly absent from the tropical cyclone project as of late due to filling out some related meteorology stubs and getting them up to at least B class. Also, the work on the extratropical cyclone article and our recent Late November 2006 Nor'easter offshore the Southeast has led me to create and fill out other extratropical cyclone/blizzard/nor'easter articles. I've noticed a couple of people currently and previously in the tropical cyclone part of the project have been assigning extratropical cyclones equivalent Saffir-Simpson categories based on their central pressure. Please don't do this. Extratropical cyclones are larger systems with broader wind fields, and I'm worried that calling some 970ish cyclone that affects the East as a category 2 hurricane is going to lead the unknowing to an incorrect conclusion for its maximum sustained winds. Thegreatdr 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of the tropical cyclone article

That is one long article...it may take a while for several of us to make it an FA. =) I added a number of links when there were cn's in the text, with a couple of them eliminating some factual errors (like the 18 annual typhoons the Philippines were supposed to receive!) It's so long, that there may be a number of other factual errors within the article. Direct links were make into refs, some no break spaces were added where numbers and units were side by side, and the sections were reordered into (what seems to be) a more logical order. This is only my second attempt at improving an article from GA, so feedback (positive or negative) would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been meaning to work on that article for a while, and after finals are done two weeks from now, I'll try to overhaul it as well. But thanks, though, the article really needs it. More eyes can't hurt... I will check the new additions soon. Titoxd(?!?) 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical cyclone on Main Page

While everyone is drooling over the History of porn being Today's Featured article, I don't think many have realized that Extratropical cyclone will be on the Main Page after that. It's WikiProject Meteorology's first FA, so it would be nice if we kept an eye on the article while it is in the spotlight, as we know how that usually goes... oh, and congratulations to the parent WikiProject would probably be nice too. :) Titoxd(?!?) 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help reviewing cyclone GAs

Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates has been getting a heavy backlog, and we could use some help slimming it now. Of particular problem is your guys' section. I just passed Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) which had been waiting for almost a month and there's plenty where that came from. A lot of the problem seems to be that you guys make too many good articles but are, let's face it, boring to read for the non-cyclone fanatic. Not that that is your fault, it's just all of those important details that you need to include go right over our heads. So I think it would be better if your own members review the articles. They would know what to look for and might actually enjoy learning something about "Tropical Storm Kal-El (2036)". Just...make sure not to be bias, ok? --SeizureDog 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. – Chacor 14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data source on TC satellite and other info

Tropical Cyclones data observed by TRMM/PR,TMI,VIRS, Aqua/AMSR-E and Midori-II (ADEOS-II)/AMSR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.224.224 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not usable.

Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

JAXA/EORC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

– Chacor 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&oldid=92584977"